Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Trade with Norway

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the trade balance between this country and Norway in January, 1964, and in January, 1965, respectively.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Redhead): Figures of our trade with Norway can be obtained from page 283 of the Overseas Trade Accounts for January, 1965.

Mr. Digby: Whatever the figures are, does not this appear to be an example where the import surcharge has converted a favourable trade balance into an adverse trade balance?

Mr. Redhead: No, Sir. The whole of the drop in our exports to Norway between January, 1964, and January, 1965, is accounted for by the single item "Ships and Boats" which fell from £3·6 million to £10,000. The value of this item is bound to vary greatly in individual months.

Imports

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has of an accumulation of imports until after 27th April; and what changes in the level of imports he anticipates in the month of May.

Mr. Redhead: There is some evidence that shipments have been deferred until after 26th April, but it is too early to judge what these will amount to. It is not the practice to publish estimates of future imports.

Mr. Digby: Are there not reports of the widest hold-up of goods on this occasion, and will the Government take steps on the next occasion before they reduce the surcharge not to give advance notice so that this does not happen again?

Mr. Redhead: We are not apprehensive of very serious congestion in the docks. Indeed, we feel that some reports of an anticipatory kind may well be exaggerated.

Mr. Barber: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not trying to minimise the consequences of the Government's action. Does he deny the reports which we have all seen in the newspapers that goods have been held back by the Scandinavian countries, Italy, France, Germany and Belgium, and also that vessels have had to be specially chartered in order to deliver the goods which have been delayed?

Mr. Speaker: That could perhaps be put as, "Does the Minister deny the fact?" because he is not responsible for reports in newspapers.

Export Incentives

Mr. Channon: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for further incentives for exporters.

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend has at present no addition to make to the new measures which he announced on 8th April, but is keeping the matter under review.

Mr. Channon: Does not the Minister of State recognise and agree that the concessions which the Government have gained are as nothing compared with the damage that they are inflicting the whole time on our exporting companies by the petty and vindictive measures taken in the Finance Bill?

Mr. Redhead: On the contrary, I would suggest that the figures of exports in the first three months of this year give tangible evidence of an improvement consequent upon the Government's measures.

Mr. Peter Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman have words with his right hon. Friend in order to encourage exports and to ensure that this new step of the


Government today of a very severe further credit squeeze is not applied by the banks to companies which are dealing to a very large extent with exports and export orders?

Mr. Redhead: These are questions obviously for consideration.

Mr. Dell: Are not the Government considering the arrangements for cheap export finance irrespective of the period of credit?

Mr. Redhead: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend included in his last statement on 8th April a number of measures for improving credit facilities. These continue to remain under review.

Q4 (Interior Design)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now satisfied that the interior design of the Q4 will reflect the highest standards of modern industrial Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bence: asked the President of the Board of Trade what official consultations he has now had with Messrs. John Brown Limited and Cunard Limited respecting the interior design of the Q4.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): The discussions between Cunard and the Council of Industrial Design, which I mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) on 4th March, are continuing. The company is well aware of the Government's concern that the arrangements for supervising the interior design of the new ship shall be such as to ensure that the result will be of the highest possible standard. With this object in view, my right hon. Friend will keep in the closest touch with the company and the Council.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Cunard Company is receiving something over £17 million of public money and that many of the decisions being taken on the interior design are being made by a person with no obvious qualifications other than that she happens to be the wife of the Chairman of the Cunard Company? [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Will my hon. Friend make

sure that when such large sums of public money are spent proper value is received?

Mr. Mason: The Cunard Company knows the importance which I attach to the standard of industrial design in a ship of this kind and of its taking advantage of the wide range of fittings and equipment of modern design now produced in Britain.

Mr. Bence: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that for nearly a hundred years the Cunard Company has launched ships ahead of any other shipbuilders in the world, and there is no doubt about it that when the new Queen is launched she will be the most modern, up-to-date and best finished ship in the world?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those comments. As I have informed the House already, a number of meetings have been held with the Council of Industrial Design, and I hope that these will continue quite amicably.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Are not these mean personal attacks against people who cannot hit back in very bad taste, and do they not lower the dignity of the House, and of the so-called hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: It cannot be for a junior Minister at the Board of Trade to answer that, which must be a matter of opinion.

Mr. Shinwell: When the Government provide credit to the extent of £17 million to a shipping company, are we not entitled to exercise some measure of control?

Mr. Mason: Yes, but I ought to advise the House that under the terms of the loan to Cunard we have no power to insist on any particular interior design or on the employment of any particular designer.

Exports

Mr. Dell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions he has come to as a result of his discussions on whether changes are desirable in the existing arrangements for training in the mechanics of export and on whether action is required by Her Majesty's Government to encourage people to make the fullest use of them; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Redhead: The consultations mentioned in my answer of the 18th February are continuing, but I am not able to add to that reply at this stage.

Mr. Dell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance of keeping facilities for this sort of training under continuous review in relation, particularly, to demand, especially as, unfortunately, the mechanics of export are not becoming any simpler as time goes on?

Mr. Redhead: My hon. Friend can be sure that we take a serious view of this, and that consultations are covering a very comprehensive review of existing facilities, and what further steps may be necessary.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Will the Minister of State tell the House what are the mechanics of export?

Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are many British companies which have gone into partnership with overseas territories in forming new companies for the servicing of British exports, and that they are hard hit in this way by his right hon. Friend's Finance Bill?

Mr. Redhead: I am not sure that I see the relevance of that supplementary question to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: It depends on the meaning of "mechanics of export", which was not explained.

European Coal and Steel Community (Import Surcharge)

Mr. Channon: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply has been made to the request by the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community that, in accordance with the terms of the agreement on commercial relations concluded in 1957 between the Community and the United Kingdom, they should be granted retroactively 30 days' delay in the imposition of the 15 per cent. surcharge.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now replied to the aide mémoire from the European Coal and Steel Community regarding the 15 per cent. Import

surcharge; and what were the terms of his reply.

Mr. Redhead: Our reply to the aide mémoire, which was handed to the High Authority's representative in London on 22nd April, explained that Her Majesty's Government had concluded with the utmost reluctance that they were unable to agree to the High Authority's request that imports from the European Coal and Steel Community should be retrospectively exempted from the British import surcharge for a period of 30 days.

Mr. Channon: Does not this whole miserable story prove once again how incompetently the surcharge was imposed; that it was clearly in breach of the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community, and that Her Majesty's Government, by their actions at that time and by their delay in answering the request of the Coal and Steel Community, have now once again shown how little they care for our relations with Europe and how much they have damaged them?

Mr. Redhead: That is not a conclusion in which I would concur. In any case, the High Authority has been well assured of our desire to maintain close links with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does not the Minister think that in this case some form of compensatory action by Her Majesty's Government is called for, particularly in view of the incredible time it has taken the Government to answer this request? Was not this, even for this Government, a record in international discourtesy?

Mr. Redhead: Members of the High Authority did not themselves complain of the delay. They accepted the view that it was sensible to await the discussion which took place at a meeting of the High Authority on 5th March before the Government finally gave their answer.

Mr. Barber: Will the hon. Gentleman press upon his right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Government the necessity, in the interests of good relations with our trade partners abroad, of abandoning altogether, at the earliest possible moment, the surcharge, which has done untold harm?

Mr. Redhead: Without concurring in the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is already aware that the Government are committed to reducing, and abandoning, the surcharge just as soon as the balance of payments position permits.

S.S. "Lakonia" (Inquiry)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his technical and legal representatives were present at the adjourned hearing of the inquiry into the "Lakonia" disaster in Athens on 8th March; and whether their report is yet available.

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. Legal and technical experts represented Her Majesty's Government in March as on earlier occasions, and have reported to the Board of Trade on the progress of the inquiry.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he give the House any indication when he expects the report of the inquiry will be made known to this country, in view of the fact that a large number of British passengers were on board this vessel and that the accident took place getting on for a year and a half ago?

Mr. Mason: Some time in the summer.

Mr. Shinwell: Arising out of this affair, has not my hon. Friend reached the conclusion that passenger ships engaged on cruises, and picking up British passengers at British ports, should be carefully examined to ascertain whether they are seaworthy?

Mr. Mason: No doubt a lot of this will be examined during the course of the inquiry.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does that mean that this report will be published? If not, what other action will the Minister take?

Mr. Mason: The Board of Trade—and, in particular, myself—is not free to comment on the progress of the inquiries so far, as under Greek law all these inquiries are private, not public. So we have to await publication of the report before I can make any further comment.

Toilet Requisites (Prices)

Mr. Hamling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up an inquiry into the prices of toilet requisites, including toothpaste, toilet soaps, shaving soaps, and lavatory cleaners.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): No, Sir. Where there are price increases that appear to the Government to justify investigation these will be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that the price of some of these things has gone up by as much as 20 per cent. in the last couple of months?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. We have had discussions with the Toilet Preparations Federation and the Society of British Soap Makers about their recent price increases, and we are satisfied that the traders concerned are aware of the need to absorb their cost increases in their prices as far as possible.

Mr. Lipton: Does that reply include a reference to the grossly excessive price increases in soap powders?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

Statistics of Trade

Mr. Hamling: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that publication of a detailed breakdown of trade statistics on a quarterly in place of a monthly basis will be adequate to enable action to be taken against sharp and unforeseen increases in specific classes of imported goods; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Redhead: Statistics of our trade continue to be published monthly, in the same detail as hitherto, in the Trade Accounts of the United Kingdom.

Books and Technical Periodicals (Prices)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to keep down the price of books and technical periodicals.

Mr. Darling: The White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy sets out the considerations which should guide all


concerned with prices. I see no reason at present for any special action with regard to books and technical periodicals, but the Board of Trade is in touch with the trade associations concerned in order to obtain further information about prices.

Mr. Walker: Does not the Minister consider that the fact that a number of regular Government publications have increased in price by 50 per cent. and that the postage for sending them has gone up by 33⅓ per cent. is a rather bad example for a prices policy?

Mr. Darling: These are matters that can be considered also.

Sir H. Butcher: Will the Minister look at the increase in prices recently made by the Stationery Office, and ask it to set an example?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

Industrial Development, Crediton

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why he refused an industrial development certificate to a prospective manufacturer for a factory at Crediton, Devon;

2) to what extent it is his policy to encourage the establishment of light industry in the Crediton area of Devon.

Mr. Darling: The first consideration must be to get available industry to the development districts where the need for more employment is greatest, and it was in the light of this that an industrial development certificate was recently refused at Crediton. Subject to this priority, I am prepared to approve suitable projects by firms with ties to the Crediton area.

Mr. Mills: Why did not the Minister give that Answer earlier in a Written Answer when he refused to give the information? Frankly, all we are asking for is permission to start a small factory without any Government aid or help. I ask the Minister to think again, as local people are seriously disturbed by this refusal, bearing in mind the recent Report on the South-West which showed that industry was not only leaving, but being encouraged to leave.

Mr. Darling: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is

" Yes, Sir," and the answer to the second part is that discussions are still going on with the company concerned about the location of its project.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the policy being pursued by the Government is widely welcomed on this side of the House, and that the greatest need is obviously to get factories and industries into the development districts, such as Merseyside, which really need them?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

Exports (Market Research)

Mr. Dell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement on the study carried out by the British National Export Council and the Board of Trade on the feasibility of establishing a marketing organisation for the purpose of promoting the exports of companies which either do not at present export at all or which export only to a limited extent.

Mr. Redhead: The market research necessary before decisions can be taken is currently being carried out on the West Coast of the United States of America, in British Columbia and in West Germany.

Mr. Dell: Can the Minister explain exactly what these tests of feasibility are? Is not the only real way of testing this idea to try it out in a specific market?

Mr. Redhead: We are engaging eminent consultants in this field as we feel it necessary, for the B.N.E.C. to reach sound conclusions as to a scheme of this character, to do preliminary market research.

Sir C. Osborne: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that those who have been exporting for many years know that the key to exports is prices and that unless prices come down we cannot increase our exports? How can we get prices down when wages keep going up for the same work?

Mr. Speaker: We are talking about this feasibility study.

Sir C. Osborne: With respect, Mr. Speaker. I am the last to challenge your Ruling in this House, but I thought that question perfectly in order.

Mr. Speaker: I fear that to my regret our views differ, but I will look at it.

Import Surcharge

Mr. Alison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he now has as to the extent to which the 15 per cent. surcharge has reduced imports in the categories affected.

Mr. Redhead: The import figures for the first quarter of 1965 provide evidence that the temporary import charge has had sortie effect in reducing imports.

Mr. Alison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the import figures of manufactured goods for the first quarter of 1965 show a 16 per cent. increase over the corresponding period of 1964?

Mr. Redhead: The hon. Gentleman's conclusions and deductions from printed statistics do not concur with mine.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, agree that the reduction of imports in March was greater in goods which were not subject to the surcharge?

Mr. Redhead: That is true, but nevertheless manufactured goods have shown a reduction in the import figures.

Mr. Kelley: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration when any future announcement of a reduction of surcharge is likely to be made that advanced warnings will have a tendency to suppress the enthusiasm of importers to go into business?

Mr. Redhead: I can only say that all relevant considerations will be taken into consideration.

Mr. William Clark: In view of the fact that when this import surcharge was introduced it was thought that there would be a saving of £200 million in imports in one year, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the record to date gives any indication that that will be achieved?

Mr. Redhead: The hon. Member will appreciate that the effects of the charge cannot be separated from other influences affecting imports.

Gin Traps

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the fact that the use of gin traps is

prohibited in this country, if he will introduce legislation to make unlawful the manufacture for export, for use overseas, of these articles.

Mr. Redhead: No, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend realise that the reply denotes an extraordinary cynicism of attitude in that the manufacture of these instruments of torture has been prohibited in this country for many years because of their extreme cruelty? Will he agree that it is improper for us to export that which is prohibited in this country?

Mr. Redhead: The Board of Trade has no general powers to prohibit the manufacture of goods either for sale on the home market or for export. It has power, however, to prohibit the export of goods under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, but as a general rule we do not require goods exported from this country to conform with our own regulations, for example, on health and safety. Conditions abroad are dissimilar to those in this country and it is normally inappropriate for us to seek to legislate for other countries.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Departmental Officers (Visits to Firms)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many officers of his Department regularly visit firms; and what work they do.

Mr. Darling: Some 260 officers regularly visit firms to assist them on exports, export credits and industrial location. A similar number visit firms in the enforcement of legislation for which the Board of Trade is responsible; and a further 500 visit ships, docks and warehouses on matters concerning the safety and welfare of vessels and ships' crews.

Mr. Sheldon: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of finding out what is happening in industry is to visit firms themselves and that consultations at the Board of Trade are


not an adequate alternative? Will he agree that as the work in his Department increases he should make sure that his officers spend more of their time seeing what is happening on the spot and making the required recommendations?

Mr. Darling: I think that the service we have at the Board of Trade from these regular visits is very satisfactory. If any further improvements in this service are needed we shall certainly make arrangements for the improvements to take place.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the excellent work carried out by these men and the hard day's work they put in, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that they are still given a good lunch by the firms they visit?

Sir H. Harrison: Will the Minister see that those officers who go to firms and talk about exports are closely linked with our trade attachés in foreign countries so that where they see a need for certain goods this vets circulated back?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

Cotton Textile Industry

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will institute an official investigation of the present situation in the cotton textile industry, with a view to ascertaining what extra assistance might be given by the Government to this industry.

Mr. Darling: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) on 10th December last.

Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that, although the level of activity at the moment in the cotton textile industry is quite high, there is growing apprehension at the prospect of further cotton goods imports arising later this year? Are there any steps which his Department have in mind to control the situation?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade is in consultation with the Cotton Board and other interests concerned in this matter.

Sir C. Osborne: When the 10 per cent. surcharge is reduced will it affect the cotton trade?

Mr. Barnett: In view of the fact that the Answer which was given to me previously did not tell me very much, could my hon. Friend perhaps look into this matter again?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

E.F.T.A. Action Committee (Representations)

Mr. Marten: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations were made to him by the delegates at the International European Free Trade Association Action Committee in mid-March about the surcharge and the export rebate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Redhead: None, Sir.

Mr. Marten: I am much obliged for that reply, but could the hon. Gentleman say whether there is in Europe a great stockpiling of exports waiting to come to this country when the surcharge is reduced? Would it not be better to no away with the whole of the surcharge straight away and let trade flow freely?

Mr. Redhead: It has been repeatedly made clear that the Government intend to reduce and abandon the surcharge just as soon as the balance of trade position improves.

Mr. Peter Emery: Will the Minister of State bear in mind that certain exporting firms are having to decrease the price of their exports by their export rebate so as to get business? This is because of the effect of the surcharge. Will the hon. Gentleman bear this in mind particularly as an extra reason for reducing the surcharge immediately?

Mr. Redhead: We have some evidence of isolated cases of that kind, but they must not be exaggerated in their total effect.

Mr. Snow: In the meantime, would my hon. Friend draw to the attention of at least one member of E.F.T.A. the fact that over a long period it has had an extremely favourable balance of trade with us and that one of the quickest ways of getting rid of the necessity for the surcharge would be to rectify that imbalance?

Mr. Redhead: We lose no opportunities of drawing the attention of relevant countries to such factors.

Local Employment Act

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the working of the Local Employment Act, in relation to migration of population in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Darling: The Local Employment Acts are designed to promote employment in places of high and persistent unemployment, not to deal with problems of migration. Nevertheless, the provision of employment in these places helps to lessen outward migration.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would not the Minister of State agree that areas such as the North-East, the east of Scotland, and the Border suffer tremendously from migration and find it very difficult to maintain existing industry, let alone attract new industry? Would he not consider, in implementing certain promises made during the election, including migration as a criterion for designation as a development district?

Mr. Darling: That is a proposition which is well worth considering, and we will consider it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is it not a fact that one of the great defects of the Local Employment Acts was precisely that depopulation was not accepted as a criterion by the then Government, although we on this side tabled Amendments designed to secure this?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Barber: Will the Minister of State also agree with the point made the other day by Mr. George Chetwynd that one consequence of the changes in company taxation will be that investment in development districts is less attractive than it has been hitherto?

Mr. Darling: There are differences of opinion a bout this and I understand that the matter will be discussed in the House before long.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister of State realise that these Acts are not really effective for the purpose for which

they were designed? In particular, they are not stopping the drift south of craftsmen from the north-east of Scotland. Will he have a look at it from this point of view, with a view to stopping that drift south?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Minister of State aware that one of the problems in areas which may suffer from depopulation is that they are unable to attract new and vital labour because of shortage of housing induced by the Government's monetary policy? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to help in this matter?

Mr. Darling: Neither the hon. Member nor anyone else has any evidence to support that allegation.

Bacon (Imports)

Mr. Bessell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to encourage home production of pig meat, he will place an embargo on the importation of bacon from Poland and other Communist countries.

Mr. Redhead: No, Sir.

Mr. Bessell: Is the Minister of State aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst British producers of pig meat and bacon at the amount of imports from other countries, particularly from Communist countries? Is he aware that this is considerably discouraging home production?

Mr. Redhead: It was only last year that a sharing understanding was reached, in which Poland and Hungary were partners, and this is, in our view, of considerable value in bringing stability to the bacon market. If we deprived Poland and others of their share, there would be no guarantee that the gap would be filled by home supplies. Other imports—for example, from Denmark—would be more likely to gain.

Mr. Ennals: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many Members on this side who would deeply resent any attempt to undermine the basis of our expanding trade with Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe? Further, would my hon. Friend kindly explain to the hon.


Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) something about the principles of free trade, to which I understand the Liberal Party is wedded?

Mr. Redhead: We are quite convinced that to put an embargo on bacon, as is suggested in the Question, would be contrary not only to the understanding but to our long-term policy of improving trade relations with Poland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is our balance of trade with Poland and these other Communist countries mentioned favourable or unfavourable?

Mr. Redhead: At the moment it is unfavourable. Appropriate representations have been made to the Polish authorities.

Bowhill (Advance Factory)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the imminent closure of Bow-hill Colliery in central West Fife, involving about 1,100 men in loss of employment, he will initiate, as a matter of urgency, the building of an advance factory there.

Mr. Darling: Advance factories already built, under construction or planned by local authorities and the Board of Trade will make available 350,000 sq. ft. of factory space within a 15–mile radius of Bowhill. The needs of the locality will be fully taken into account in considering any future programme of Government advance factories.

Mr. Hamilton: How many jobs does that figure represent? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Coal Board itself has stated that it can re-employ not more than about 320 of these 1,100 men and that, if alternative employment is not found for them, the middle-aged men will get no work at all and the young men will probably move out of the country altogether? Can my hon. Friend say whether there will be a future advance factory programme in the ensuing years?

Mr. Darling: We are aware of the difficulty which will arise when and if the closing of the colliery takes place. I understand that the negotiations now going on between the Coal Board and the union will mean that most of the men will be offered alternative employment by the Board; but, as my hon. Friend

rightly says, we will be left with the problem of finding employment for the older men. I cannot tell him how many jobs are likely to arise from the expansion in factories that is now going on or is projected——

Sir C. Osborne: Are there any tenants?

Mr. Darling: —but there has been considerable success in attracting new industry to Fife and we are hoping that this will continue. In any case, we are keeping the matter under review. On the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the programme of advance factories announced in November is now going on and we do not expect to announce another one for a little while.

Resale Prices Act

Mr. Park: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many manufacturers have made applications to the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements for the exemption of their products from the provisions of the Resale Prices Act; and for how many categories of products such exemption has been claimed.

Mr. Darling: I understand from the Registrar that he received some 700 applications from various firms and trade associations and that these relate to over 400 classes of goods.

Mr. Park: Would not my hon. Friend agree that under existing procedures the hearing of such a large amount of exemption claims may well take several years? Would he not further agree that there is some evidence here of a conspiracy, by some manufacturers at least, to defeat the purposes of the Act? Will he consider methods by which the hearing of claims can be expedited?

Mr. Darling: I do not know about evidence of conspiracy, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the Registrar is able to group goods for the purpose of references to the Court. In fact, in the 12 references already made about 300 different classes of goods are involved and, if experience under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act is any guide, of every four or five references only one goes to a full hearing.

Mr. Peter Emery: Has priority been given to those firms which specifically


requested that their applications for hearing should be dealt with first in order that the matter should be clarified for their own industry?

Mr. Darling: No. The priority of references was left to the Registrar. The Board of Trade did not give any directions.

Mr. Peter Emery: The President of the Board of Trade gave me an assurance a few months ago that he would look into this matter to ensure that priority was given to firms which requested it. Will the Minister reconsider this matter immediately?

Mr. Darling: No, because after the consideration that was given to the matter by my right hon. Friend it was concluded—I, and I am sure most people who are involved in this, think rightly—that it should be left to the Registrar to decide, and he has decided the order of references.

Mr. William Clark: Would not the Minister of State agree that the reduction in prices—particularly the reduction in the price of whisky—following the Resale Prices Act has been largely offset by the penal taxation of this Government and that the benefits of the Resale Prices Act——

Mr. Speaker: No such whisky arises out of the Answer.

Merseyside (Office Development)

Mr. Tilney: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are his plans to stimulate office development on Merseyside and to endeavour to move both private enterprise and Government offices from London to Merseyside.

Mr. Darling: In administering the proposed control of office development, the Board of Trade will certainly take account of the employment needs of development districts such as Merseyside.

Mr. Tilney: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear to industry that even though their tactical headquarters must be in London it is often more economic and efficient to have their base headquarters in the provinces, including Merseyside?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir, and this was made perfectly clear in Committee on the Bill. The point was raised repeatedly.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that for a long period of time there have been movements of office activity away from Liverpool and that this is a source of great anxiety? Will he take account also of the fact that the latest instance of the choice of Manchester over Liverpool for office development has been offered by the Claims Branch of British Railways? Having regard to the interest of his right hon. Friend's Department in the distribution of enterprise, will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the anxiety to which that kind of thing gives rise?

Mr. Darling: There are difficulties involved here, because until the comprehensive studies now being made into the location of office employment and how it might be guided have been completed we cannot take all the action that I am sure hon. Members who represent development districts would like us to take. I will draw my hon. and learned Friend's second point to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend make it decisively clear that the trend which was taking place under the previous Government will be reversed and that we will get more offices into Merseyside?

Mr. Darling: That is why we introduced the Control of Office and Industrial Development Bill.

Merchandise Marks

Mr. McNair-Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to introduce legislation to deal with merchandise marks.

Mr. Darling: I cannot at present add to the Reply I gave to the hon. Member on 25th February.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on that occasion he told me that this would be urgently attended to? Is he aware that shoddy goods of all sorts are on sale in our shops and that, particularly with footwear, customers have no way of discovering what materials go into their manufacture?

Mr. Darling: I am aware of these problems. They have been drawn to


our attention frequently and new legislation will be introduced as soon as practicable.

Sir Knox Cunningham: When can we expect some of the dynamic legal reform which was promised before the election?

Mr. Darling: If the hon. and learned Member will look at the legislative programme of this Government he will see that it is all there.

Mr. Rose: In considering this matter, will my hon. Friend go into the question of verbal misrepresentation and also into the problems posed by television advertising and ensure that there is a proper method of prosecution embodied in any Act which will be forthcoming?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. The question of oral misrepresentation is covered and it will be an offence under the terms of the legislation. Enforcement will be done by the local authorities. I think that that covers the other point which my hon. Friend raised.

Phthalic Anhydride

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade, what is the present rate of duty upon phthalic anhydride entering this country; what is the domestic quantity price in the United Kingdom as compared with the domestic quantity price in Germany; and what percentage of the total demand in the United Kingdom is being met by domestic producers.

Mr. Redhead: The full rate of duty is 33⅓ per cent. and I estimate that about 90 per cent. of demand is being met by domestic producers: I have no reliable information about prices fixed in private transactions either here or in Germany.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the price in this country is materially higher than that prevailing on the Continent? As many manufacturers have been taking 10 per cent. of the home-produced goods at a considerable disadvantage, will the hon. Gentleman consider waiving the duty for a temporary period?

Mr. Redhead: Application has been made for a permanent reduction in the duty. The applicants have been told that we think it best to await the outcome of very difficult negotiations in the chemical field on the Kennedy Round.

NON-JUDICIAL BODIES (FINES)

Ql. Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to make it an offence for any body other than Her Majesty's courts to impose fines on anyone under any circumstances.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.

Mr. Lloyd: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his terse if unilluminating reply, which suggests that he has been to Moscow rather than to Rome, may I ask if the House is to assume from the reply that trade unions are to have power to impose fines on their members? If so, how is this to be reconciled with an incomes policy and with the statement which the Prime Minister has made on television?

The Prime Minister: There have been, and there are, a number of professional bodies which have powers—one thinks of doctors, lawyers and others—to impose all kinds of penalties on their members when their members are in default of the rules agreed by the association in question. I remember in this House some very bitter exchanges about the activity of certain trade associations, in fining tyre retailers, defended by right hon. Members opposite. If the hon. Member is con-concerned, as I think he may be, with particular restrictive practices which may be enforced by fines, I think that he will find support in all parts of the House for our efforts to deal with these restrictive practices and to try to get rid of them by agreement wherever that is possible.

ATLANTIC NUCLEAR FORCE

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Prime Minister to what extent his proposals discussed in Bonn with the Federal German Government for the creation of an Atlantic Nuclear Force are designed to give that Government an indirect say in nuclear policy.

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Prime Minister if, following his visits to Bonn and the United States of America, he will have further discussions with the Government of the German Federal Republic on proposals to give the Federal Republic a share in the control and operation of nuclear weapons; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 9 together.
If by "an indirect say in nuclear policy"—the words in the Question—the hon. and gallant Member means any right direct or indirect to initiate nuclear action, the answer, as I explained at length in the foreign affairs debate on the 16th of December last, is that under our proposals no existing non-nuclear power would obtain that right. On the contrary our proposals contain built-in guarantees against dissemination and acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Sir T. Beamish: Is not the Prime Minister running a serious risk of being accused of speaking with two voices? How does he reconcile his statement rather more than two years ago that he was utterly opposed in all circumstances to Germany having any say in allied nuclear policy with his promise in December that these A.N.F. proposals were to give Germany a direct part to play in the mounting and management of nuclear weapon systems? Surely those two statements are quite irreconcilable.

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that the phrase I used in the debate on 31st January, 1963, was "No German finger on the trigger directly or indirectly in any circumstances." That is the position which will he safeguarded under the Atlantic Nuclear Force proposals and would apply equally to other non-nuclear members of the alliance.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Can the Prime Minister say how his proposal differs in any way from the position in the N.A.T.O. alliance now?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, simply because, as the right hon. Gentleman was at great pains to point out when he was at this Dispatch Box, Germany is prevented under treaty obligations from making nuclear weapons. There was nothing in these treaties to prevent Germany from acquiring or receiving nuclear weapons, having them supplied or entering into some agreement with the French. Under our proposals it would be a safeguard that Germany could not receive, nor could anyone supply to Germany or to any other non-nuclear Power.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the Prime Minister saying that his proposal about the A.N.F. does not give Federal Germany any right or say in the control and operational planning of nuclear weapons? Does he seriously say that?

The Prime Minister: I dealt with this at great length on 16th December and I ask the hon. Member to study the words which I used. I said that in so far as it is in any sense, to use the rather loose phrase, "a finger on the trigger", there is certainly no proposal to give anyone extra power so far as the movement of the trigger is concerned. In other words, Germany and other non-nuclear Powers would have no power to initiate nuclear action. As regards the agreement on targeting and nuclear policy—[Interruption.]—if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) does not understand the difference between having a finger on the trigger to cause a gun to be fired and the right to be consulted about targeting and nuclear policy in general he had better go back and study this all over again.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, under the present N.A.T.O. alliance arrangements, Germany has full right to be consulted about targeting and to bring anything before the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee. In his proposals about this force, is there anything that differs in any respect from the N.A.T.O. alliance arrangements in that connection?

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed there is. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the matter was very fully deployed on 16th December. If he was satisfied about the participation of Germany and other non-nuclear Powers in preparations and the targeting situation, I am not quite clear why his Government made proposals to increase those powers.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister tell us what the next step will be over these proposals? Who has agreed to them, and what were the follow-ups?

The Prime Minister: As I think the whole House well understands, the position is that not much progress is likely to be made with the M.L.F., the A.N.F., or anything else this side of the German elections. It would be quite unrealistic for anyone to suppose that that would


happen. We realised that all along. But there is in progress the working group in Paris examining the technical proposals and examining what is the new factor in the situation, our A.N.F. proposals as compared with the M.L.F. proposals on which right hon. Gentlemen opposite, over two years, could not agree even in their own Cabinet.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the view has been expressed by the German Government and in the West German Press that the line between the negative control which he envisages and positive participation is a thin one which will be eroded very quickly?

The Prime Minister: This, of course, was the position as regards the M.L.F. proposal which we found holding the field when we came in, but I think the big difference between that and these proposals is the very clear provision, through safeguards and guarantees which were spelt out to the House, about non-acquisition and non-dissemination of nuclear weapons.

COMMON MARKET

Sir R. Nugent: asked the Prime Minister whether the public statement of the Foreign Secretary made during an authorised interview with a United States news agency, and published on 20th March, on the subject of relations with the Common Market, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Sir R. Nugent: As the Foreign Secretary's statement on this occasion was a very forthcoming one in terms of joining up with Europe, does this mean that the Prime Minister is now prepared to discuss with the European Economic Community his five conditions about entry?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the position here was quite clear. There is no question whatever of Britain either seeking or being asked to seek entry into the Common Market in the immediately foreseeable future. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition described it at the election as a "dead duck", and this particular

question is not a reality. As regards the members of the Six, there is no evidence that they have changed their attitude at all to British entry. So far as this Government are concerned, the conditions we laid down still apply. This does not mean that we cannot do something to build a bridge between the E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C., and we have taken initiatives to discuss this at Ministerial level in the E.F.T.A. to see whether the E.F.T.A. can agree on an approach to the Common Market from the E.F.T.A.

Mr. Grimond: If, as the right hon. Gentleman just said, the five conditions remain, this would, in fact, make it impossible for this country to join the E.E.C. at any time, would it not?

The Prime Minister: The point here—let us be absolutely clear about it—is that the terms on which the last Government tried to crawl their way in were quite unacceptable to the Commonwealth. While there may not be many difficulties about the Treaty of Rome—one or two obvious points will have to be dealt with—so long as there is the agricultural policy, about which we repeatedly warned the then Government, which would mean a levy of 75 to 80 per cent. on every ton of Australian or Canadian wheat coming into this country, an increase in our import bill of hundreds of millions, and an increase in our industrial costs, then to join on those terms would mean complete disruption of our trade with the Commonwealth, which I hope that no one in the House would be prepared to contemplate.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that building bridges is no substitute for joining the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that the policy of the party opposite is to join the Common Market on conditions which would destroy Commonwealth trade, as I have just said—if that is what we are to read into his speech last night—and a European nuclear deterrent, it is about time the Leader of the Opposition made the position of the party opposite clear to the nation.

Mr. Orme: I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear answer. Will he


convey this clear answer to his noble Friend in another place?

The Prime Minister: The statement of my noble Friend in another place, of which I nave read every word, was completely consistent and in complete agreement with what I have said. What we have made clear—I have said it again in Rome privately, and publicly this morning—is that, while there is no question whatever, as I hope the whole House agrees, of immediately joining the Common Market, and while we should require very different conditions before we could contemplate joining the Common Market, if we can get any easement of tariffs between the two blocs which divide Europe today, it is our duty to do so. That is the purpose of the initiative which we are taking in the E.F.T.A. I hope that we cal get agreement there, and I hope that it will then have the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. Heath: As the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) believes that the Prime Minister has made his position absolutely clear in regard to the Common Market, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the initiative is which, so he announced last week, he is poised to take? What consultations and preparations have been made before taking such an important initiative, and what indications has he had from the European Economic Community of its response to it?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is a little premature; my invitation was to the Leader of the Opposition to state the Opposition's position. As regards the details of his question, I should have thought that, with his long experience in the matter, he would expect us to discuss these questions with our colleagues in the E.F.T.A., then, having done so, to make what statement is appropriate—I hope that one will be made to the House immediately afterwards—and then to have discussions with the members of the Six. In answer to previous supplementary questions, I have given some idea of the kind of initiative which could be taken. There are some four or five issues—the right hon. Gentleman will know what they are—which we could pursue with our E.F.T.A. colleagues and see how far there can be E.F.T.A. agreement on them.

UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions he recently had in the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to similar Questions on 27th April.

Mr. Marten: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in spite of the considerable opposition from the benches behind him, it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to lean very strongly upon the Anglo-American alliance? Second, did he discuss with President Johnson the Atlantic Nuclear Force, and, if so, with what result?

The Prime Minister: Support of the Atlantic Alliance has always been the policy of this party, and we have had very fruitful discussions on this question. [Interruption.] It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to talk about questions of major disagreement when their own Front Bench is now divided even on the question of European—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have still to hear from the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with the proposal for a European nuclear force put forward yesterday by his right hon. Friend. The question of the A.N.F. was very fully discussed with President Johnson in December. It was then agreed that the matter should be further discussed in Paris, and that is what we are going on with now.

SPAIN (GIBRALTAR)

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister (1) what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to British citizens visiting Spain on holiday or otherwise;

(2) whether he will introduce legislation to impose a surcharge on all British citizens visiting Spain on holiday or otherwise.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the communication he has now received from the Head of State in Spain about the


Spanish treatment of Gibraltarians; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ensor: asked the Prime Minister whether there has been any change in the policy of the Spanish Government concerning the problem of Gibraltar; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. Q8, Q9, Q10 and Q11 together.
I have neither received from nor sent to the Spanish Head of State any communication about the Spanish treatment of Gibraltarians, on which Spanish policy appears as yet unchanged.
As for the policy of Her Majesty's Government about visits to Spain by British citizens, I would refer the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) to the Answers I gave on 6th April to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards), and on 13th April to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison).

Sir F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of a surcharge in order to help the people of Gibraltar? In view of his known love of retrospective legislation, would he agree to apply such a surcharge to the 40 or more hon. Members opposite who have been the guests of the Spanish Government, with their expenses paid in full?

The Prime Minister: If such a surcharge were to be as retrospective as that it would have to apply also to a large number of right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite. But I do not consider that a surcharge is the appropriate way of helping the people of Gibraltar. We stand firmly behind them and a surcharge, retrospective or otherwise, is not the way to help them.

Mr. Duffy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only crime that the Gibraltarians have committed in the eyes of the Spanish Government is that they want to remain British and that all their genuine attempts at co-operation have been met with provocation, vindictiveness and even persecution? May we have my right hon. Friend's assurance

that, while the Spanish Government persist in their attitude, there will be no sale of arms to them?

The Prime Minister: I give that assurance to my hon. Friend. He has put the situation very fairly. It is right to say—and here I hope to have the support of right hon. and hon. Members opposite—that the particular issue which the Spanish Government regard as the cause of this persecution was the late Government's decision, which we fully supported and always will support, to give a measure of qualified self-government to the people of Gibraltar. It was this which upset the Spanish Government and led to threats at the time and the action they have since taken.
I hope that we all stand by the rightness of that decision to give a measure of self-government to the people of Gibraltar. They were entitled to it and we were right to give it.

Sir P. Agnew: In considering Anglo-Spanish relations, will the Prime Minister take into account the fact that the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, under which the territory of Gibraltar was ceded to this country's sovereignty for ever, are now obsolete and quite impossible of complete and literal fufilment? Will he, therefore, take an early opportunity to have conversation with the Spanish Government with a view to more modern conditions for a treaty being brought about under which it will be made clear that the administration of Gibraltar is British and remains absolutely subordinate to this country?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about the Treaty of Utrecht. It is a little out-dated now. I expressed that view only this morning at a Press conference in Rome when asked a question by a Spanish journalist. Of course, it is true that the last Government took and we ourselves take the view that no action Britain has taken in relation to Gibraltar in any way offends our interpretation of the Treaty. That is quite unthinkable. It would be quite impossible to renegotiate the Treaty. For instance, quite a number of emperors and others are not around to renegotiate it now.
If it is a question of having bilateral negotiations with the Spanish Government about this, we regard the action taken in April, 1964, as thoroughly justified and within our rights. Secondly, while we are prepared to have talks with the Spanish Government, we will not negotiate with them under duress.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conditions under which the people of Gibraltar are living today are more or less like a concentration camp and that if this continues for any undue length of time it will have an effect on their morale?

The Prime Minister: We are doing all we can to improve the living conditions of the people of Gibraltar. Ministers have been out there to see what can be done and the Defence Department has been very active. I would not agree that morale is suffering. Their reaction to what they have had to go through has shown their complete loyalty to their ancient relations with this country and their gratitude for the self-Government given to them a year ago.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the excitement of the moment, the Prime Minister embraced in his Answer to Question No. Q.5 and others Question No. Q.9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). Would we be in order in asking a supplementary question on No. Q.9?

Mr. Speaker: I have some difficulty here because the Prime Minister also embraced Q.9 when answering Question No. Q.2 and I cannot really accept the double embrasure.

The Prime Minister: If I did include Q.9 in my Answers to Questions No. Q.5 and others, Mr. Speaker, I was in error. I thought and hope that I said that I would answer with Question No. Q.5, Questions Nos. Q.8, Q.10 and Q.11. If I did include Q.9 in that list as well as in the Answer to Question No. Q.2 it was an error.

Mr. Speaker: The ground was covered but the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) very courteously did not essay a supplementary question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 3RD MAY—Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill.
Remaining stages of the Criminal Evidence Bill, and of the Dangerous Drugs Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
Motion on the Immunities and Privileges (Amendment) Order.
TUESDAY, 4TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Gas Bill and of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Airports Authority Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 5TH MAY—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: Committee. Debate on Rates.
Motion on the Import Duties (General) (No. 2) Order.
THURSDAY, 6TH MAY—Debate on the the Iron and Steel White Paper, which will be available tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
Motions on the Agriculture Ploughing Grants Schemes.
FRIDAY, 7TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 10TH MAY—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Museum of London Bill [Lords].

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: With reference to the proposed business for next Thursday, does not the Leader of the House think it completely unreasonable to announce the date of a debate on one of the most contentious subjects in this Parliament before the White Paper has been produced? This is treating the House very badly. Why is it necessary to have the debate, following the White Paper, as soon as Thursday of next week?

Mr. Bowden: I do not think it at all unreasonable. The White Paper is being produced tomorrow at 3.30 p.m., just half an hour after the Stock Exchange closes. There will be full opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to look at it and discuss it over the weekend. It is not a very long document. There are also three days next week before the debate on Thursday. It is surely in the interests of the House and the country that the White Paper should be debated at the earliest possible moment, consistent with adequate time to look at the proposals.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the jobbers on the Stock Exchange he is concerned with, but the voters in Birmingham, Hall Green? Does not he think it ridiculous that, when the Government have had five months in which to prepare this White Paper, he allows the House only five days before having a debate upon it?

Mr. Bowden: I should think that, after that comment, the right hon. Gentleman's own stock will have fallen. It is true that there is a by-election on Thursday next week, but there is no reason to assume that the result of it is absolutely clear now.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are relieved to know that the base suggestion that a by-election may have had any influence on the date of the debate is plainly untrue? Is he aware, however, that there is an important meeting in Europe on that day? As we are all now so keen on Europe, what is to happen to that meeting?

Mr. Bowden: I am not quite clear as to how many representatives of the right hon. Gentleman's party from the House of Commons are attending that meeting in Europe.

Mr. Grimond: One.

Mr. Maxwell: Is the Leader of the House aware that because of the action of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite our delegation to Europe is not able to attend? Furthermore, is he aware how grateful the country will be that he is bringing this White Paper to the attention of the House so that we can deal with this matter once and for all in the decisive manner it deserves?

Mr. Sharples: In view of his assurance that the remaining stages of the Firearms Bill would not be started at an unreasonable hour, can the Leader of the House confirm that, if the opposed Private Business today lasts for the full time, it is not the Government's intention to embark on the remaining stages of that Bill?

Mr. Bowden: It is always difficult even to guess how long opposed Private Business will take, but I will give the assurance that if it lasts until ten o'clock, we will not tonight proceed with the Firearms Bill.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend answer two questions? First, can he tell us when we might expect a debate on the recommendations in the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure about Questions? Secondly, can he tell the House when the War Damage Bill and the Lords Amendments thereto may come back to this House? Can he give an assurance that there will be plenty of time for that Bill, because I have a lot to say about it?

Mr. Bowden: We have only just received the second interim Report from the Select Committee on Procedure and I think that we ought to wait a little while before debating it.

Hon. Members: What about the White Paper on steel?

Mr. Bowden: I said that we should wait a little while.
On the second question, as far as my memory goes, I do not think that the War Damage Bill has yet had its Report stage in another place, but I can assure my hon. Friend that adequate time will be given for the Lords Amendments.

Sir C. Osborne: On next week's business, as a matter of emergency will the Leader of the House try to find time to discuss two important matters which arose yesterday and today? The first is the announcement on the tape that the banks are being compelled to deposit an extra £90 million of special deposits, which will have a deflationary effect of at least £90 million. The second, coupled with it, is the statement at the E.E.C. Monetary Committee in Brussels yesterday that the Common Market central banks would refuse to renew the


3,000 million dollar loan which expires in a few weeks' time.
Those are the most urgent and desperate matters which I have ever known and they should be discussed. May we have time to discuss them next week?

Mr. Bowden: It might be helpful if I were to say a word about the timetable generally. Between now and the period when the Whitsun Recess is normally taken we shall be discussing for almost the whole of those five weeks financial matters in one form or another.
On the specific question, my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will be winding up the debate tonight on home loans and I think that it would not be inappropriate if he wished to say something about special deposits.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Can we have a foreign affairs debate almost in the next few days on the subject of Vietnam? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware, as his hon. Friends must be, that even today the Australian Government have announced that they are sending Australian troops to that area. For the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that between now and Whitsun we shall not even touch on foreign affairs shows a complete dereliction of his duty to the interests of this country. That is more than borne out by the totally frivolous political measure which is to come before the House in three or four days' time, when we have to consider the steel White Paper although the Government have taken five months to prepare it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a more responsible attitude than is so far seen from his conduct of affairs.

Mr. Bowden: It was not so many days before the Easter Recess that we had a debate on foreign affairs. I cannot promise time out of Government time between now and Whitsun, but if there is general interest on the Opposition side of the House in a further debate on foreign affairs perhaps we can use a Supply day.

Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have meetings in their constituencies tomorrow evening and that to reach them we shall have to leave Westminster well before half-past three? Will he tell the

House what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the White Paper on steel is in the hands of such Members so that they may have the advantage of studying at least over the weekend what the Government have had 13 years and five months to consider?

Mr. Bowden: There is an hour tomorrow during which time the White Paper can be picked up in the Vote Office, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is looking at the possibility of a copy being put in the post to every hon. Member.

Mr. Heath: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), the Leader of the House said that the Chief Secretary might say something about special deposits at the end of today's debate. Is he aware that this is most unsatisfactory? We are to have only half a day's debate today on home loans, and if the Chief Secretary is to wind up we shall have to carry on the debate in complete ignorance of what he is to say and we shall have no opportunity of putting questions to him.
In these circumstances, can the Leader of the House explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not told the House this afternoon about the special deposits and explained what has happened since his Budget statement to make him introduce this measure today, or, if nothing has happened, explained why he did not put it in the Budget?

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman is very well aware that whatever action had to be taken had to be taken promptly and was taken at noon today. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement today, that would have been three statements before a very short debate on home loans and there would have been criticism in that direction. I have already said that if he thought it appropriate, the Chief Secretary could say something on the subject during his winding-up speech tonight.

Mr. Sandys: Will the Government take an early opportunity to tell the House about the important proposals which they have made to the Governments of India and Pakistan for a cease-fire?

Mr. Bowden: We hope to be able to do so very soon.

Sir H. Harrison: May I take up the issue raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and remind the Leader of the House that even if the White Paper on steel is put in the post at half-past three, those hon. Members who live some way from London will not receive it before Monday morning, because they have no postal delivery on Saturday? As most Members of the House will not see a copy until Monday morning, will he reverse his decision about a debate on Thursday?

Mr. Bowden: I thought that we were doing everything possible to help hon. Members over the White Paper. The House sits tomorrow until 4.30. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides must take some responsibility. If they want the White Paper, it is available in the Vote Office. If not, they will receive it by first post on Monday.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The position about a statement on special deposits is not very satisfactory. Something has happened since the Budget which has made this necessary. Surely the Chancellor could have told the House about it. It does not seem to be much help to the House to have the Chief Secretary speak of the matter in his winding-up speech tonight. Does not the Minister of Housing and Local Government know why this has happened? Could he not say something about it earlier in the debate?

Mr. Bowden: I thought that I was being helpful by making this suggestion, but if the House would prefer a full statement to be made tomorrow morning or on Monday we could arrange that.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the Leader of the House aware that next Thursday night there is likely to be a very important Division on the White Paper on steel? Is he further aware that only one by-election is in progress at the moment, that at Birmingham, Hall Green, and that in the country the decision to hold the Division on the White Paper will be regarded as a shabby political trick?

Mr. Bowden: The Division at ten o'clock on Thursday night will be affected by one vote, according to who is returned at the by-election.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am reminded that we have very little time for the ensuing debate. We shall have to stop these questions.

SPECIAL BANK DEPOSITS

Sir C. Osborne: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Would it be in order for me to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 so that we might debate a matter of urgent and immediate national importance, namely, the announcement about the special deposits which has been made only today and which could not have been made without the consent and knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer following the threat yesterday from Brussels that the loan would not be renewed and upon which the very stability of sterling depends?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to try to move the Adjournment on any ground that he likes. If he proposes a Motion, it is my duty to consider it.

Mr. Manuel: Is there in the Standing Orders governing our procedure any period of time laid down during which you, Mr. Speaker, must wait for the delivery to you of a Motion under Standing Order No. 9?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know about the time, but I have to receive it in writing in my hand. Time is probably governed by locomotion. I will rule on the point raised by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), but there is other business with which we must deal before I can receive his Motion.
Later—

Mr. Speaker: This is the opportunity for which the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is waiting.

Sir C. Osborne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely,
having regard to the immediate danger to sterling implied by today's statement on special bank deposits, which deflates the economy by a further £90 million, following the refusal of the E.E.C. banks yesterday to renew the 3,000 million dollar loan which expires in a few weeks' time.
To support this proposal, Mr. Speaker, may I say that only a few seconds ago


I saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer behind your Chair.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely,
having regard to the immediate danger to sterling implied by today's statement on special bank deposits, which deflates the economy by a further £90 million, following the refusal of the E.E.C. banks yesterday to renew the 3,000 million dollar loan which expires in a few weeks' time.
I regret that I cannot accede to the hon. Member's application. The Motion does not fall within the Standing Order.

RHODESIA

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The Rhodesia Government have issued a White Paper setting out their views on the economic effects of a unilateral declaration of independence.
Her Majesty's Government have no desire to try to influence the voters of Rhodesia in the General Election due to take place on 7th May, and for this reason have not hitherto commented on what is being said by spokesmen of either the Rhodesian Government or Opposition parties during their respective campaigns.
They obviously cannot, however, re-ma in silent in the face of official utterances in Salisbury about the probable content of decisions which would be taken in London. The Rhodesian Government did not consult Her Majesty's Government about their decision to issue such a White Paper, still less about its contents, which completely misrepresent the likely economic effect on Rhodesia of a unilateral declaration.
The Rhodesia Government White Paper, after referring to the statement issued from No. 10 Downing Street on 27th October says:
it has been assumed, in some quarters, that the proposals referred to in the statement would be applied by the British Government with a degree of severity designed to collapse the economy of Rhodesia within a relatively short period".
It then purports to "evaluate" whether, in fact, Britain could or would imple?

ment in full what it calls the "sanctions" suggested after a unilateral declaration.
By this means the Rhodesia Government are seeking to convey the impression that they and not Her Majesty's Government are the best judges of what action Her Majesty's Government would take in the event of a unilateral declaration.
Her Majesty's Government adhere to the Statement issued on 27th October, 1964. It expressed the view that the economic effects of a unilateral declaration would be disastrous to the prosperity and prospects of the people of Rhodesia and that Rhodesia's external trade would be disrupted. Nothing that has happened in the last six months has afforded reasons for modifying this judgment in any way.
The White Paper states that a great proportion of Rhodesia's exports could be marketed in countries other than Britain with whom Rhodesia has trading relations, and it discusses in particular tobacco which is Rhodesia's chief export. Britain is by far the biggest buyer of Rhodesian tobacco, and if Britain were to stop buying it the effect upon the tobacco growers and upon the whole economy of Rhodesia would be particularly severe. The Rhodesian Tobacco Association is itself reported to have reached the conclusion that the imposition of embargoes would be disastrous to the industry. There would be no difficulty in procuring British tobacco requirements from other countries.
The White Paper seeks to reassure Rhodesians that after a unilateral declaration money will be forthcoming for investment in Rhodesia from what it terms "countries not unfriendly" towards her. Britain has hitherto been the chief external source of capital for Rhodesia's economic development. A unilateral declaration would put a stop to this flow. The statement of 27th October made it clear that all financial as well as trade relations between Britain and Rhodesia would be jeopardised, that aid would cease, and that, with one or two exceptions, other Governments would be likely to refuse to recognise Rhodesia's independence or to enter into relations with her. The establishment of an illegal régime in Rhodesia is least calculated to produce stable government there which the


Rhodesian Government themselves recognise to be a prerequisite for attracting investment from abroad.
Other Governments inside and outside the Commonwealth will no doubt make known their own views on the White Paper. Commonwealth Prime Ministers, in their communiqué of 15th July, 1964, noted with approval the statement of the British Government that they would not recognise any unilateral declaration of independence, and the other Prime Ministers made it clear that they would be unable to recognise any such declaration. Moreover, the entire Commonwealth expressed its approval of the declaration of 27th October. There can be no justification for the Rhodesia Government or people to nurse the delusion that they would receive widespread international support.
The Rhodesian view of events elsewhere in Africa and their effect on thinking in the West is profoundly mistaken and it would be an error to assume that this view could affect Her Majesty's Government's policy towards an act of rebellion in Rhodesia.
The White Paper argues that the adverse consequences of a unilateral declaration would be the responsibility of Britain alone. It is not Britain, however, which is contemplating unconstitutional action. If such action were to be taken responsibility for the consequence would lie squarely on the shoulders of those who took it. The White Paper appears to assume that it would be improper for Britain to react in any way if Rhodesia chose to put herself in the position of a colony in rebellion, whereas Rhodesia would be entitled to take whatever measures she chose against Malawi, Zambia or any other country in retaliation against the inevitable consequences of her own action. No Government outside Rhodesia is likely to share this view.
Her Majesty's Government remain firmly convinced that the only route by which Rhodesia can achieve independence without grave consequences to herself is by the process of constitutional negotiation. She cannot hope to defy Britain, the whole of the Commonwealth, nearly the whole of Africa and the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, profoundly hope that Rhodesia will not be misled into thinking that she

could escape disaster if she were to fly in the face of world opinion.
As I have indicated earlier this afternoon, the answer lies in an agreed solution and Her Majesty's Government stand ready to carry forward their not entirely unhopeful negotiations with the Government of Rhodesia after the election in order to achieve this objective.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I intend not to comment on the substance of this rather unhappy exchange of Government declarations, but really to express the hope that the Government of Rhodesia will respond to the last sentence of the Prime Minister's statement and that negotiations will be resumed after the General Election has taken place in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for what he has said. The position which we have taken has been entirely consistent and a continuation of the very firm and statesmanlike line taken by the previous Government on the question in the negotiations last September. We have kept that on.
I believe that the one hope—as I say, the situation is not entirely unhopeful—lies in the negotiations which we hope to resume more actively after the election. A dialogue of a kind is continuing now, but, obviously, in the election situation, it will be difficult to carry the negotiations to any fruitful conclusion.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that everyone will hope for a peaceful and friendly result from these negotiations? But is he also aware that most people will certainly support this declaration, which makes it crystal clear that no one in this country could simply ignore a unilateral declaration of independence by Rhodesia, and the Rhodesian people should be doubly well aware of the position of this country?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Frankly, we did not want to have to make any statement on this issue, particularly while an election was on in a Commonwealth country. But, in view of the terms of the White Paper which was issued which seemed to put interpretations on our own words and on the intentions of the Government quite contrary to what


was meant by the Government and what was clearly understood to be meant by the Government, we had no alternative but to make a statement this afternoon.
I apologise to the House that it was somewhat long and has interfered with the ensuing debate, but I felt that a statement of this degree of constitutional importance had to be made in the House. It had to be made today and that was why it could not be done in the form of issuing a statement from 10, Downing Street, or by putting it in written form in HANSARD.

Mr. Turton: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that his correspondence with the Rhodesian Prime Minister is forming a background issue in the Rhodesian election? Will he go so far as to tell the Rhodesian electors and the British people whether, in his correspondence, he made an offer of negotiation, because by his silence he is aiding the extremists in Rhodesia and handicapping those who wish to arrive at a negotiated solution to this very unhappy problem?

The Prime Minister: The correspondence has been confidential. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor had discussions, which for the most part, I am afraid, were not very encouraging, about the possibility of an agreed solution. But one ray of light emerged. There was one possibility which, I think, I have today described fairly as being not entirely unhopeful; I would not put it higher than that.
We and, I hope, everyone in Rhodesia will feel that it is right to concentrate on that ray of hope, such as it is, rather than to take any extreme positions, even in the temptations of the heat of an election, because no one. I hope, would imperil the chance of a peaceful settlement. I hope that my statement this afternoon quite clearly said what would be the results of unconstitutional action.

Dr. David Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House the forthright and courageous terms in which he has made his statement are very welcome? I suspect, too, that he will probably know that it is not only on this side of the House that his statement will be welcomed.
Is my right hon. Friend in a position today to tell the House of any hope that might be forthcoming to Zambia and Malawi in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia being implemented in the terms of the Rhodesian White Paper?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. As I made clear, I did not want to have to make this statement today. As to its forthright terms, it is only fair to say—the Leader of the Opposition will not mind my saying this—that it is consistent with and in continuation of the clear statements made privately by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the earlier stages of the discussions.
As to the possible effects on Malawi and Zambia, I hope that we can regard this as entirely hypothetical, because these are, perhaps, veiled suggestions of what might happen if a certain thing occurred as a result of a unilateral declaration of independence which we know to be unconstitutional.
Therefore, while, naturally, the Government are watching closely any possible consequences of unconstitutional action, I hope that I will not be asked this afternoon to say what would be done if unconstitutional action took place, which we all hope will not be the situation.

Mr. Sandys: Since the situation is somewhat explosive, will the Prime Minister, perhaps as soon as possible after the election in Rhodesia, take the initiative in proposing negotiations?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, a kind of dialogue is at present continuing. In the circumstances, it can inevitably be confined to no more than basic principles. As, however, I have made clear, and I am sure that Mr. Smith would very much agree with this, as soon as the election is over we would propose to enter into discussions with the Rhodesian Government as to the basis of constitutional advance which would make possible an agreed move towards independence.

Sir G. Nicholson: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he expected each Commonwealth country to express its opinion separately. Is there no hope of some collective expression of opinion?

The Prime Minister: I quoted the collective expression of opinion by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the conference last July, and that statement was in the clearest and most unequivocal terms. We have kept in close touch with all the Commonwealth Governments. The hon. Member will be aware that our statement of 27th October was publicly supported by, I think, every Commonwealth Government. That being so, one can, I think, take it that the interpretation of that statement which I have given today would have the support of the entire Commonwealth.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Prime Minister has on a number of occasions referred to the period after the election, and that, of course, I understand. He will, however, realise that on, I think, Friday of this week, long before the election, the Security Council proposes to embark upon a motion on Rhodesia which can do nothing but exascerbate the position there. Would the Prime Minister like to indicate the views of Her Majesty's Government towards that motion?

The Prime Minister: Of course, we have not yet seen the terms that will be debated—

Mr. Macleod: I have them.

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of motions are being proposed. We do not know what will be finally debated. We are, of course, in close touch with Lord Caradon on this question. Perhaps if we buy a copy of tomorrow's Spectator we shall get the answer.
As to the more serious aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's question—until we got his intervention—it is vitally important that discussions on this subject

in the United Nations should not reach a situation that would exascerbate feeling on any side in Rhodesia, or, indeed, in any part of Africa. My noble Friend Lord Caradon has been in the closest touch with Commonwealth missions to the United Nations and a great deal has been done by, the general good will of everyone concerned to keep the atmosphere as cool as possible during these difficult months when provocative action of any kind might have led to an explosion.
Until we know the exact terms of the motion which is finally moved, we cannot decide our attitude to it. We understand the apprehensions and anxieties of all the Afro-Asian countries, but it would be unfortunate if we were to get a Security Council decision that in any way prejudiced these difficult negotiations.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)

Bill to increase the limit of the aggregate amount of advances which may be made to the Scottish Special Housing Association under proviso (i) to section 18(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962, presented by Mr. Ross; supported by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon and Mr. Niall MacDermot; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1965–66

CLASS VI

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £16,482,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government; grants and expenses in connection with water supply, sewerage, coast protection, storm damage relief, abating the pollution of the air, planning and redevelopment, new towns, areas of outstanding natural beauty, rating relief and sundry other services; a subscription to an international organisation and a grant in aid. [£7,616,000 has been voted on account.]

HOUSING (HOME LOANS)

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: At the conclusion of this debate we shall move a reduction in the Vote of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I do not do so now, so as not to limit the scope of the debate.
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly why we propose to move a reduction in his Vote. It is because the people of the country, the young married couples and the older families with children, under his administration and the policies being pursued by himself and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are being denied homes which otherwise they would have. They are being denied them because, as a result of Government policies, the stream of finance for housing is drying up. They are being denied them because the mortgage rates of many local authorities, among them the great local authorities, are higher than at any time since 1945.
All this blatantly contradicts every General Election promise which the right

hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made. They were promises with which they gained tens of thousands of votes which helped to give them their present narrow majority. Above all, we are condemning the indifference of the right hon. Gentleman who has seen this situation developing, and has done nothing whatever to remedy it.
The Government have constantly been warned of the consequences of their policy. They have shown that they do not understand the workings of the building industry. What is more, they have shown that they do not care about those who want to buy and own their own homes. During the last year of the last Government, 373,676 houses and flats were completed. That was 25,000 above the target, and they were all part of nearly 4 million houses which were built during 13 years of Conservative Government. That was the achievement of those 13 years. We all know that the demand is still very great, and we know the reasons. It is due primarily to the immense improvements which took place in the standard of life of our people over those 13 years.
At the end of 1964, there were 433,922 houses and flats under construction. That was just over 60,000 more than were completed in 1964. All those starts were the result of Conservative administration. That was the legacy of 13 years which we have bequeathed to the Government. There were more than 430,000 houses and flats in the pipeline, and there is no doubt whatever that the target of 400,000 houses for 1965 would have been achieved, and greatly exceeded, under a Conservative Administration.
The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends have stultified, and are stultifying, this legacy from their predecessors. We all know that the builders of houses are extremely worried about the present situation, and, indeed, are cutting back their housing programmes. Everybody has read the statements by the great construction firms. The chairman of Wimpeys said that his firm had cut back 30 per cent. of its target figure. The MacManus group said that it was cutting back production by about 15 per cent. Wates has cut back the number of houses it is actually releasing on to the market by 20 per cent. and it has laid off 10 per cent. of its labour force.


Richard Costain has decided to call a halt on work on 250 semi-finished houses for which no buyers had been found.
That is what is going on at the moment in the building industry, and it can be summed up in the declaration of the meeting of the Federation of Registered Housebuilders, last weekend:
It was calculated that in the absence of immediate action"—
by the Minister—
there was little chance of the target of 400,000 houses in 1965 being reached. The shortfall might well approach 50,000.
In other words, only 350,000 houses will be completed in 1965, as against 433,000 houses and flats which were left in the pipeline to the right hon. Gentleman.
It seems that 80,000, or certainly 70,000 fewer houses are likely to be completed this year. Is that the policy which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues put before the electorate at the General Election, that they should be returned to power to produce 70,000 fewer houses than the number of starts, or 50,000 houses fewer than the target? It means that nearly 300,000 people who would otherwise have got new modern houses in 1965 will not be able to get them, and that is the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman. Is that what he and his colleagues told the electorate at the General Election? Not on your life.
Week after week in the year preceding the election the advertisements in the newspapers were quite clear. They said:
The new Labour Government plans to provide many many more homes …
That is what they told the electorate week after week, and each advertisement was signed "Harold Wilson". The right hon. Gentleman's supporters may say, "But did not our clever and greatly beloved leader leave us some way out of this? Did not that wizard of the weasel word leave us a little outlet?" Of course he did. He did not say more than what! Did he mean many more than they built during their last year of power in 1950–185,000? But that will not wash. The public did not get that impression, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know full well that their pledges have not been carried out.
This is having a great effect on the builders. What has brought about this cutback? There is today an acute shortage of mortgage funds, particularly at the building societies. Normally, these finance about 75 per cent of private building, and this situation will probably he made worse by the announcement today about the special deposits.
The Times, reporting on building societies on 24th April, said:
All are feeling the effects of the squeeze, described by many as the worst since the war.
This is having a double effect on builders. First, many large builders have annual quotas for loans with which to carry on their development. They get these from the building societies, and the evidence is that most of these quotas have been halved.
The second effect is that individual buyers cannot get mortgages, so the escalator of buying and home ownership is grinding to a halt. Those who want to buy expensive houses cannot sell the ones they are in at the moment, because those who want to buy less expensive houses cannot get mortgages. That is what is slowing down the whole process of increasing home ownership. Those who want to buy the cheaper houses usually have less security and lower incomes, and less available for deposit. This is the fundamental reason why this process is now slowing down, and, as the houses cannot be sold, the builders are having to cut back heavily on their programmes.
There are still a favoured few who get their mortgages. Another advertisement was shown to me yesterday from Ideal Home for May, 1965, which is just out. It has a drawing of a charming house, with a splendid bubble coming from the top saying, "How can you afford a house like this on your salary?" with the answer, in another bubble, saying, "I arranged the mortgage through the Harold Wilson Organisation". Before anybody jumps up to ask whether I notified the Prime Minister that I was going to attack him in this way I would add that any organisation helping people to get mortgages or houses could not be associated with the Prime Minister.
Let us look in detail at the position of the building societies today. It is true that March quarter lending was considerable; it was £10 million up on


the March quarter a year ago. The Chancellor knows the explanation, but in any case I will tell him what it is. First, it is due to the earlier commitments which were undertaken by the building societies before that quarter; secondly, to the money they took in in the preceding months; and, thirdly—and very important—to the running-down of their liquid resources, which was very considerable. In March, 1964, the liquid resources were 16·8 per cent. and in March, 1965 they were 13·1 per cent., or a quarter run down.
That is not very slight, and the building societies do not believe that it is very slight. They believe that it is of great importance, and they may wish to use future deposits to build up their liquid resources again, which means that money will not be available for mortgages for houses. Therefore, the promises which the building societies can give for the next quarter are well down. That is why the escalator of home ownership is slowly grinding down.
What about deposits? Broadly speaking, small depositors are continuing to deposit with building societies. The figure for the first quarter of 1965 was only £1 million down on that of 1964. The problem is caused by the larger deposits being removed. This is a very serious factor in the situation. In the first quarter of 1965. £224 million were withdrawn, compared with the first quarter of 1964, when £158 million were withdrawn. In other words, increased withdrawals amounted to £66 million in that quarter, which is almost a half—certainly two-fifths—of the 1964 figure. That is why there is now an acute shortage of mortgage finance. This is the first time that this situation has arisen since 1945. When, previously, there have been economic difficulties no comparable situation has arisen.
What are the reasons for this? First, it is because of overseas deposits leaving London before Christmas. This has meant that other depositors with the building societies have had to withdraw their deposits to replace those overseas withdrawals. The Chancellor will agree that despite the strength of sterling there is as yet no indication that these deposits are pouring back. I say this because it means that this is not just a temporary situation which will exist for a week or two, but one of which we must take account.
Secondly, the 7 per cent. Bank Rate, the credit squeeze and the depressed stock market, have meant that those who want liquid resources cannot get them easily by selling securities. They cannot get them from the banks, and today's measure will make it more difficult. The easiest thing to do is to withdraw liquid resources from the building societies. This means that the amount of money available for mortgages has decreased. Thirdly, other institutions are offering much higher rates, especially local authorities.
I was interested to see that on 13th April the City editor of the Daily Mirror—which, on the whole, is not considered to be unduly subservient to the Tory Party—said:
I never thought I would see the day when a town hall treasurer in Britain would have to borrow cash at 9 per cent. interest to pay the council's bills.
Neither did we—and neither did the electorate.
So the conclusions to be drawn are: first, that this is not a temporary situation; and, secondly—and I put this particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the building societies must use their commercial judgment in setting rates to attract deposits. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider exactly how wrong, and indeed, foolish he was in trying to denigrate and condemn the building societies for the change they made in the middle of January in increasing their rates, and how much worse the situation would have been today if they had done what the Chancellor tried to make them do.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Local Government may say, "If the building societies have not got it, let people go to the local authorities." That is a doctrinaire answer, in general keeping with his outlook. But let us consider the position of the local authorities. On 23rd March, the right hon. Gentleman said that his Department had no information about the number of housing schemes suspended or stopped, nor did he have any information about the rates of interest at which they are being operated. He said exactly that, if he cares to look it up. He could not give the House the information.
Although that situation had developed, he had not even bothered to discover the information. He had all the resources of


his Department, but he could not find out. The information that he gave to the House came from the Press.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman) rose—

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman should wait until he has been given the answer by his P.P.S.

Mr. Crossman: What I said in my reply was that the information was not officially collected by my Department, but that from our Press cuttings we estimated that at least 37 local authorities had suspended their schemes. It is true that up to now our Department, after 13 years of Toryism, does not have this information available, but I have now arranged for the information to be obtained and in future we shall not rely an Press cuttings, as our Tory predecessors did during their 13 years of office.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman's Tory predecessors did not have to deal with this situation. We have made it our business, as the right hon. Gentleman could not, to get the best information possible. I will give it to the right hon. Gentleman now.
We obtained it in respect of county and non-county boroughs, which are the major organisations concerned, and of which there are 358 altogether. We have managed to get information concerning 283 of them—more than three-quarters of them—of which 242 had home loan schemes. That shows how many such schemes have developed during the 13 years of Tory rule. We discovered that, in the North, 14 major authorities had stopped schemes altogether; in the Midlands and East Anglia, 16 authorities had stopped; in the South, 13 had stopped; and in Wales, three had stopped. This excludes entirely the urban and rural district councils, which were included in the right hon. Gentleman's figures, which he gained from the Press.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there were 1,200 local authorities altogether, and then gave figures from the Press. Many have reduced the percentage of the mortgage. Interest rates have been increased by 165 of those major authorities. On the average, the rates being charged range between 6¾ per cent. and 7¼ per cent., with a few at 7½ per

cent. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the audacity to rebuke the building societies for increasing their rate.
Let us look particularly at the two largest authorities—London and Birmingham, which are both Labour controlled. In mid-January, London put its rate up from 6½ per cent. to 7¼ per cent. One London borough put it up to 7½ per cent. In Birmingham, a very interesting situation arises. In a party political broadcast on 8th May, 1963, the Prime Minister said:
We shall also encourage popular schemes such as that in Birmingham, where the Labour Council are building houses for sale, and are giving 100 per cent. mortgages with low interest rates.
What is the position now? Since the Government of the right hon. Gentleman came to power, Birmingham's Labour Council has restricted all mortgages to a ceiling of 85 per cent. and has put interest rates up from 6 per cent. to a new peak of 6¾ per cent. That is what has happened in Birmingham. It had to happen because of the present situation. Yet this was cited by the Prime Minister as the one he wanted to copy.
Look at the building materials industry as the third part of the picture. The industry is anxious. It depends to a very large extent on "starts", and these are now diminishing. The Minister of Public Building and Works—I do not see the right hon. Gentleman here today—has urged the brickmaking industry to increase its output of bricks in 1965 by 600 million to 8,400 million, an increase of 8 per cent. He has constantly urged the industry to increase investment in plant and has constantly given the impression that it would be an ever-expanding industry. On 18th February, at a contractors' luncheon club, the right hon. Gentleman said—I thought slightly peevishly—
I keep listening to or reading public statements of the leaders of the industry expressing fears about the future and seeking reassurances from the Government. Frankly, I am getting a little bit tired of this.
Since then the right hon. Gentleman has not said a word. He now realises the position.
All this is due to the policies of the Government, not to the 15 per cent. surcharge—though we know that has added an increased cost to houses—but to the two Budgets, the Bank Rate and the credit


squeeze. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State said in a White Paper that the surcharge was to deal with the balance of payments problem and that no further action was required. All the rest of this position flowed from the crisis of confidence for which the Prime Minister said his own Government was responsible. There was a crisis of confidence; the Bank Rate and the credit squeeze followed. Yet still confusion reigns.
On 20th January the Minister of Housing and Local Government said:
It should be a matter of weeks and not months before we can hope that the 7 per cent. Bank Rate is over.
That was over three months ago. Does not his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell him what is going on, and the facts of economic life?

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: He does not know, either.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State discussed the question of inflation, and the First Secretary said on 9th December, to the American Chamber of Commerce—we tried to question him afterwards—
This is not a new credit squeeze, or a return to stop-go. This is not a reduction in the credit available.
Yet a fortnight ago, in New York, the Prime Minister was boasting of every-Ming his Government had done to deal with inflation through the credit squeeze, and the Chancellor has extended this by another £90 million on special deposits. So confusion reigns in the Government about whether they are following an expansionist or a deflationary policy.
Can one wonder that the housing industry, the housing materials industry, let alone the building societies, are completely confused by the policies of the Government? Now we can see the whole horrible picture, the building industry being cut back; half finished houses being left; sites empty and idle; the building materials industry anxious about the future; housing targets unlikely to be reached and those who want Louses unable to get mortgages let alone houses; local authorities abandoning their house ownership schemes; interest rates, in many cases,

the highest since 1945. The whole industry is being undermined by uncertainty and the Minister has sat there, doing absolutely nothing.
Just look at their pledges. Look at the Labour election manifesto—
Labour will introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing. … This policy of specially favourable rates will apply both to intending owner-occupiers and to local authorities building houses to let.
That was repeated time and time again. It was repeated in every election address. It was repeated by the Prime Minister. There are too many examples to quote. Well, take the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He said:
We simply must build more houses.
The word "must" is in capital letters, just to add a touch of earnestness to his words. Later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Labour is pledged to lower"—
the word "lower" is in capital letters"—
interest rates for houses.
None of these right hon. Gentlemen or hon. Members said, of course, that, first, all the rates would go up to the highest level and the number of houses would come down, that people would not be able to get mortgages for homes and that they would cost more if they could be obtained. There were just these specious promises, repeated time and again.
On the question of the Bank Rate, the Prime Minister gave comparisons with the last Labour Administration and referred to 4 per cent.—there was of course no commitment, just an implication to the electorate to carry it along in the belief that the figure might be 4 per cent. Then the First Secretary came jumping in, making his famous statement about 3 per cent. That has now been carefully documented in the book, "The Making of the Prime Minister"—or the undoing of the First Secretary.
What about this new scheme? Will it apply only to new house purchases? Will those already with mortgages have to subsidise the others when the right hon. Gentleman does bring in his scheme? What about consultation? The First Secretary, in his famous statement, said that there would be immediate discussions with the building societies, local authorities and other interested bodies.


Have those discussions taken place? Not to my knowledge, nor to the knowledge of anybody that I can find. The First Secretary said, "Immediate discussions". They have not been carried out.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government has himself referred to this. He said this will require legislation; that there will not be time for it in this Session. Later, he had to issue a statement, after his speech in Coventry on 23rd January, saying that he hoped that it might be implemented in the next Session. Who knows how long this Session is going on if the Government are to complete their business? It may not be even in the next Session—the right hon. Gentleman only hopes that it is to be in the next Session.
We are promised that the Land Commission Bill is to come at any moment now. The First Secretary said—actually in my constituency on 28th September, a short distance from my party headquarters—
At the same time as we are setting up the Land Commission we shall introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing.
Where is this organisation getting to so far as housing is concerned? Where is the right hon. Gentleman's scheme? Does this scheme exist at all? If so, why have not there been consultations? Or did right hon. Gentlemen opposite enter into office without a scheme, after 13 years in opposition in which to prepare it—13 wasted years of opposition? There they are. All the promises which we have heard about many many houses and lower interest rates for the householders—all of them are just paper promises. There they flutter down, lying like twisted autumn leaves over the empty building sites and half-finished houses.
What now should be done? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement today? We do not know. I was rather interested to note that the Labour Party candidate at Birmingham, Hall Green said last night that the right hon. Gentleman is visiting him on Friday and hopes to make a statement about his scheme and his programme. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his customary courtesy, will tell us about it here today, in the House of Commons, before he tells Hall Green tomorrow.
I should like to make three suggestions. If we can bring about some action by this indifferent Minister as a result of this debate we shall have done some good. The first is that the Government must pursue policies—this particularly affects the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which will encourage savings, because their present policies—the result of their own folly before Christmas—of higher prices and taxation are bound to militate against savings, particularly against savings in the building societies.
Secondly, I would say that the Minister should consider reintroducing the scheme enacted by the previous Government. Under the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, we used £98 million out of £100 million for loans on pre–1919 houses. Of course, he could use it in another form for dealing with any particular type of house he wished to choose.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: When was it suspended?

Mr. Heath: We suspended it in the autumn of 1961, on a rising market of house building, not a market which is being cut back as it is today by the Minister.
It is a fact that the 1919 houses, these older and cheaper ones are the most difficult in respect of which to get a mortgage today. It would also help to get the escalator moving.
My third suggestion is that consideration should be given to a number of suggestions which have been made from outside the House, many of them, no doubt, to the Minister and the Chancellor, as to whether there ought to be a lender of last resort for the building societies in the same way as the Public Works Loans Board is for the local authorities and the Bank of England for other monetary institutions. Any scheme of this kind can take a variety of forms. I do not propose to go into them in detail. It basically means that there should be some form of refinancing of mortgages comparable to the refinancing for exports. I doubt whether this would require legislation, but it is not for me to say.
It is absolutely right that the necessary financial discipline of the building societies and these organisations should be maintained. I agree with that entirely. I believe that these schemes ought to be carefully examined. They may be


able to even out the strains through which the building societies are now passing. Of course, all the schemes for helping and financing home ownership must be accompanied by an increase in building. Otherwise, we shall only get an increase in the prices of houses. This is absolutely fundamental to all the plans put forward for helping greater house ownership.
The final point is that, whatever the Minister and the Chancellor do now, a great deal of harm has already been done and today's measures will probably make things more difficult. It is not for me to enter into this in detail. It may be that the Chancellor wants the special deposits so as to try later to reduce the Bank Rate. This will not greatly help the building societies or those who already have mortgages, nor will it provide more money for those who want to get them. It will take time for the building societies and the building industry to regain their momentum. That is why we are today condemning the Minister and his colleagues for the harm which is already being done. They are keeping families out of new homes. They must take the responsibility both for doing this and for having thoroughly misled the country at the election.

4.42 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): I should like to start with an apology to back benchers on both sides of the House. I am extremely sorry that, in a short half-day debate, I am taking part in a four-man bout of Front Bench speeches. This was no procedure of our willing. I should have preferred to leave the rôle of the opening speech to one of my colleagues behind me and to have waited until the end in order to reply to the debate, but the Opposition decided to put up two Front Bench spokesmen. They have relegated the shadow Housing Minister the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to winding up, presumably so that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), can give us another example of that poetic, lyrical knock-about which is his peculiar contribution to Conservative leadership. As I listened to him, I was tempted to reply in kind. If I do not, that is because there are a number of serious things, which, as Minis?

ter of Housing, I must say at this Box in order to help the building societies to overcome the crisis of confidence in them which the Tory Press and Opposition spokesmen, whether they mean it or not, have been causing by their attitude during the last three weeks.
If anybody took their allegations seriously, the housing programme would indeed be placed in jeopardy. We have heard allegations this afternoon that 300,000 people will be denied houses in the coming year by the failure of the programme. We have heard about sales of homes grinding to a halt, and last night, though I did not see him on the television, we had the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition making one of his classic simplifications: "Under Socialism you cannot even get a mortgage"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They say, "Hear, hear". At a time when the building societies have massive mortgage policies, those who say that people cannot even get a mortgage are undermining confidence in the building societies and not in this Government.
I shall try to state the facts which will enable the public to realise what the situation really is behind the propaganda and that what the building societies are facing are temporary difficulties which they can and will overcome in a matter of months. First of all, I shall give the House as sober an account as I can of the precise character of these difficulties. I shall then show how they arose, and, thirdly, I shall show how we intend to meet them. In doing so, I think that I shall be able to answer all the questions which the right hon. Gentleman put to me so truculently this afternoon and to which he obviously expected no reply. I shall be able to satisfy him with those replies. These will be my three main themes.
Before I come to them, there is one topic apparently rated by him of the greatest political importance, largely irrelevant to the debate with which I must deal. Throughout his speech he spent a great deal of time demonstrating that the high mortage rates which owner-occupiers are now paying and the increasing difficulty over the last weeks of obtaining a mortgage provide final proof that we as a Government have broken all our pledges to the owner-occupiers in our election manifesto. I want to be perfectly clear on this question of pledges.


It is true that the policy of specially favourable interest rates for the whole housing programme was one of the most prominent planks in the Labour election programme. It is true that it has been a vital element in Government policy ever since we have taken office. I am not in the least disconcerted by the lavish care with which the right hon. Member for Bexley has demonstrated how irrevocably we are committed, and I am committed, to the policy of lower interest rates for home loans.
In this part of his speech, there was no exaggeration. It is the precise truth that we are committed to it. Our reputation would be ruined if we did not do it. This is all true, and it is true that we proclaimed the policy in opposition. It is true that we won a great many votes by showing that we believed in it. It is true that, as a Government, we are deeply committed to it. After describing the difficulties through which we are passing today, I shall say something as to how we shall carry it out, not only for home loans but for interest rates for local authority building as well.
There is one proviso which I want to add about home loans. There will always be a very large number of families who cannot afford to buy a house and for whom the right home will be a rented house or a rented flat. That is why a responsible Housing Minister must never give—as my Tory predecessors always gave—almost exclusive priority to the owner-occupier. A reponsible Minister will allocate money and resources fairly between three claimants—first, private enterprise building houses primarily for sale and owner-occupation; secondly, public enterprise building houses primarily to let and primarily for the lower-paid people in the community; and thirdly the combination of private and public enterprise for renovating, improving and modernising the vast stock of old houses which will otherwise degenerate into slums. These are the three jobs which one has to do, and in our election manifesto we promised a balanced policy of this kind.
I am determined to see that the balance is properly observed. We have to keep our pledge to the young couple who want their instalment burdens eased by lower interest rates, and who are sadly

distressed today. We must not do so at the cost of the young couple who want their council rents steadied by interest rates or the old couple who do not want a new house but who passionately want their old home improved by the addition of a bath, a sky-light or an indoor w.c., and who, anyway, are far more interested in the increase of the old-age pension and the abolition of prescription charges than in housing. Our first job was to decide in what order our social commitments should be carried out. We made the decision that the old and the sick must come first, that before we did anything else we must raise the old-age pension and abolish the prescription charges.
I am sure that we were right to do this, even if a number of things which I, as Minister of Housing, naturally wanted had to take second place to these responsibilities. But if old-age pensions and prescription charges are the priority No. 1 of a Socialist Government, housing certainly comes second.
When I surveyed the situation I had inherited from my predecessor, I decided, long before the Milner Holland Report produced the final confirmation, that the most desperate crisis we faced was the shortage of cheap rented accommodation and that this could only be met by a rapid increase in council house building.
I have told the councils to get on with the job of making good the shameful neglect of public sector housing, particularly in our great conurbations, which characterised Tory policy right up to election year. Already this is having its effect. Council house starts were sagging when we took over, and in the first quarter of this year we were still, with 32,000 starts, well behind the three months January—March 1964 figure, with its 37,000. But last month there was a slight but encouraging spurt forward—the first sign of our new drive—11,800 starts in March 1965, compared with 10,600 starts in March 1964—an 11 per cent. increase in public sector building. And I am glad to add that industrialised building has lately been accounting for something like a quarter of all the council housing tenders approved, which is higher than ever before.
We have, therefore, kept our pledge to the old and to the sick. We have begun to keep our pledge to the people


in the queue for council houses at the kind of moderate rents they can afford. And simultaneously I have launched a new campaign designed to wake up hundreds of thousands of tenants, landlords and owner-occupiers to the hard cash the Government are prepared to give them for house improvements, because house improvements are a major part of our housing policy.

Mr. Donald Box: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the increase of 12s. 6d. in old-age pensions, council house rents in the constituency of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are going up by anything between 10s. and 19s. 5d. a week? How does he explain that away?

Mr. Crossman: I will not be diverted into discussing increased rents in individual constituencies. I have been dealing so far with the charge made by the right hon. Member for Bexley that this party has welched on its election pledges. I have shown that we have kept our promise to the old, that we are keeping it to council house tenants and to those who want improvements. I now turn to the question of the owner-occupier.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish (Lewes) rose—

Mr. Crossman: I am now going to speak about the owner-occupier.

Sir T. Beamish: Sir T. Beamish rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Crossman: If hon. Members look at the figures, they will see that in the first quarter of this year, when public housing was only just beginning to pick up, the building societies made more advances for home loans than in the first quarter of any previous year. The right hon. Member for Bexley not only said that but took credit for it. Under this Government hon. Gentlemen opposite take credit for whatever is good and everything else they blame on us. It is art old trick, but let us look at the facts. In the first quarter of this year the building societies, under a Labour Government, advanced more in home loans than in the first quarter of any previous year. And the figures for private housing starts in the first quarter are almost as impress-

sive—54,000 compared with 52,000 in 1964.
True enough, before this latest trouble started, the house purchaser, like everyone else, was sharing the burden of high interest rates, and I had to tell the young married couple who had been looking forward to our new reduced interest rates for their home loans that they would have to wait some months, probably until this Session is over, before we can pass the necessary legislation—[Interruption.] We are discussing housing policy—

Sir T. Beamish: What about the Steel Bill?

Mr. Crossman: Now we have steel brought into it.
High interest rates are regarded by most young people as very burdensome, but not as a total deterrent to wanting to buy a house. If they have the choice between paying high interest rates and not having a house, a very large number of people are prepared to pay more. One of the most striking facts of the last few months is that high interest rates have acted as no deterrent; that the claimants' demands for houses to own has been as strong in this period as ever before. If the choice is between temporarily paying a bit more on the instalments or permanently giving up the idea of a new house, thousands of people are prepared to take on the extra burden—and I admit that it is a burden—of paying something more.
The trouble the building societies are up against is not a shortage of clients to borrow capital but a shortage of capital due, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman here, to a transfer of the capital to more profitable spheres. On that point I think we can agree where the difficulty lies. As I say, it lies in the transfer of capital from the building societies to other temporarily profitable spheres of investment, local government loans and so on. [Interruption.] That is a perfectly good example of where investors have been investing.
A number of sensational newspaper stories have created the impression that there is something organically wrong with the building societies. In fact, there is nothing organically wrong with them and nothing could be further from the truth. I am glad to see the right hon.


Member for Bexley shaking his head, I hope in agreement. Their advances for the first quarter of 1965 reached a new record. Indeed, part of their trouble is that the demand for home loans has increased faster than their resources. Yet even this shortage of resources is only relative. In the first three months of 1965, for example, new savings invested in the building societies were only £1 million less than in the first quarter of 1964. The bother is not the falling off of new savings but an increase of withdrawals, because depositors have suddenly whiffed more profitable spheres of investment.
Why has this happened and how can it be remedied? After all, very few of those who put their savings into building societies do so out of an altruistic desire to help house building. What attracts them is the sense of safety, the prospect of a good return on their money free of tax and the advantage of a quick withdrawal if they need it. In recent months the big investor, who put the maximum £5,000 into 10 building societies, has realised that there are quite a number of other places, including local government loans, where his money can be just as safe, and can earn more.
The building societies tell me that their difficulties were increased not only by the counter attraction of the local authorities loans but by the direct competition of certain local authorities in the mortgage market. What we have been watching, therefore, is a double process; on the one side a rapid increase of assets and advances resulting in a record number of home loans and new housing starts and, on the other side, a withdrawal of deposits with a corresponding reduction of cash in hand.
It was the interaction of these two forces which persuaded the building societies, beginning last January, to start warning the builders that they would have to be more tight-fisted with their home loans and which forced one or two societies in the last week or two to issue warnings that builders must no longer count on money being available to cover their building programmes after the summer. These warnings caused a sensation, caused the crisis and, no doubt, this censure Motion today.
This picture of the trouble, gathered from my discussions with the building societies, I found to be completely confirmed in my talks with the builders. They told me quite simply that now that they are no longer assured that mortgages will automatically be available, as they have been for the last few years, their programmes must automatically be cut back. Estimates of the cutbacks vary a good deal from builder to builder, partly according to their sense of drama and partly according to political prejudice [Interruption.] The trouble, they all agree, is not the shortage of clients willing to pay high interest rates, but a shortage of capital.
To complete an objective picture, before I come to what we are going to do about the situation, I must say a word about local authority home loans, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is important to get these in perspective. The right hon. Gentleman gave the picture of the number of withdrawals. What I heard more about from the building societies was the serious competition of those still in the market.
It is true that nearly one-third of the total is lent by the Greater London Council, which has allocated £80 million, or nearly half of its capital investment, this year for home loans; but local authorities, with frequent 100 per cent. advances, are a vital adjunct to the work of the building society movement. In my view they complement and do not seriously compete with it. How could they, when they form in total under 15 per cent. of the total mortgage loans? It is rather silly to pretend that local authority competition is the main cause of the building societies' difficulties, though there are those outside this House and in the Press who' have.
Well, there is my analysis. This week I have had talks with representatives of the builders, of the building societies and of the Greater London Council—as the biggest local authority in the home loan business. I think I can claim that they would all agree with the general lines of my diagnosis, although on details there are naturally differences of emphasis between different parties.
Let us turn, then, from diagnosis to consideration of what we should do for the complaint—

Mr. John M. Temple: Did the building societies mention in those talks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Capital Gains Tax would make serious inroads into their reserves?

Mr. Crossman: The conversations were strictly private, but I do not think I am committing an indiscretion when I say that this subject was not mentioned in any way.
What do we need to prevent this setback—because that is what it is—developing into a crisis that would retard this year's housing completions and seriously affect those of next year? I will start by dealing with two unacceptable ideas—one of them coming from the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, the introduction of lower interest rates for home purchasers would not help the building societies out of this position. Their problem, as I have said, is not shortage of clients caused by high interest rates but a crowd of clamouring clients denied mortgages owing to a shortage of capital. In these circumstances, to make mortgages even more popular might actually aggravate the problem in the present circumstances.
What about the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman that I should reactivate the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959. This, of course, was an idea which, as Minister of Housing, I very seriously considered, but, quite apart from any disadvantage there may be from a Treasury point of view—and I leave that aspect to my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary—I have turned it down on strictly housing grounds. In the first place, my discussions with the building societies have led me to the conclusion that they are still in an extremely strong position, able to continue financing home loans on a massive scale; and that their difficulties, though awkward enough, do not justify drastic stop-gap medicine of this kind.
Moreover, though many proponents of the scheme seem to be unaware of it, the £100 million allocated to the building societies under that Act were provided solely in order to persuade them to give mortgages on pre–1919 houses, and less than £8 million of the £100 million available under that Act is still in the kitty. So fresh aid of this kind would require new legislation to be rushed through the House. It is my considered view that to

do this in a panic mood might well aggravate the disease it is intended to cure.
But this does not mean that the Government reject altogether the idea the right hon. Gentleman spoke of—that home loans via building societies, as well as local authority building, should in certain circumstances receive Exchequer support. The right hon. Gentleman asked about that, and I will answer him in a considered way, because he has obviously been thinking about it a very great deal. It is one thing, of course, to rush a Bill through in an attempt to get the building societies out of temporary difficulty, but it is quite another thing to use Exchequer finance in order to regulate and sustain a carefully-planned overall building policy in which the Government, the building societies, the local authorities and the construction industry are all working together within an agreed annual programme and according to a well-understood common strategy. Such a notion was available during the last 13 years but was never even attempted. It is towards a national housing policy of this kind that I am convinced the country must now move, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are now actively considering the rôle of Exchequer finance within this new framework.
I have already said that it is essential to achieve a programme with a proper balance between houses to let, houses for sale, and improvements. It is clear that this balance of housing priorities is quite impossible as long as our housing programme is split into two parts—a public sector, 40 per cent. of the total, publicly financed and adequately controlled and, on the other hand, a private sector, 60 per cent. of the total, regulated only by the interaction of consumer demand, the whim of the investor and the availability of capital.
As long as this division is maintained it will be impossible either to plan the priorities fairly within the housing programme—as between houses to let and houses for sale—or to protect the building societies from the kind of set-back that has hit them this spring, or finally to give the construction industry the confidence it requires for the steady expansion we all desire. Let hon. Members ask any builder, big or small. Let


them ask the suppliers of components and materials. They all give the same answer: if they are to expand their output we must at all costs avoid violent ups and downs in the rate of building. We must have a firm programme and keep firmly to it.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe) rose—

Mr. Crossman: In a moment.
Let me say just a word about the construction industry. There has been a lot of wild talk—which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has not indulged in—about the danger of mass unemployment as a result of the present difficulties. Two figures will put this issue in proportion. In the first place, even the most pessimistic prediction by the most pessimistic builder in his talks with me last week only suggested a reduction of the very big targets for 1965 which the builders were bandying about last January to a little below the level of last year's total completions. That is the worst threat they could possibly foresee—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I do not understand that.

Mr. Crossman: Then I repeat it. The most pessimistic prediction which even the most violently pessimistic builder dare make was that there would be a reduction from what I thought at the time was the fantastic total being predicted last January to something rather below the total completion of houses last year. The worst they predicted was a slight reduction in the housing programme. That is not my view, nor is it that of any responsible person, but that is the worst anyone has dared to predict.
Further, right through this spring the construction industry has been overextended—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: A figure of 50,000 has been mentioned.

Mr. Crossman: I have not found any builder who could seriously support that when cross-examined about what he meant by it.
All through this spring the building industry has been suffering—at least in

the Midlands and the South—from an acute shortage of skilled labour, and complaining of chronic shortages of some raw materials; most recently, plaster board as well as bricks. In these circumstances, to talk about the present set-back as a major threat to employment in the building industry is absurd. What the construction industry needs just as much as the building societies, and just as much as the hundreds of thousands of people who want to buy homes, is a housing programme fairly agreed by all the interests concerned, with some assurance from the Government that there is a floor below which production shall not fall as well as a ceiling above which new construction must not go. A programme like this would not prevent any recession or setback, but it could enormously reduce its severity, as well as make it possible for the industry to plan its capital programme well ahead.
The Opposition have, quite fairly, seized upon these temporary difficulties of the building societies as an opportunity for a rip-roaring propaganda campaign. Speaking as an old hand at propaganda, I congratulate them on the Press, radio and television build-up to the culmination we have witnessed in this censure debate. It has been a first-class professional job, and that is their right. But I do not view this set-back as an opportunity for clever propaganda. I view it as a warning—and a warning not only to the politicians but to everyone concerned in the building industry—that we cannot permit a completely uncontrolled acceleration of building society advances and we cannot run the construction industry absolutely all out without meeting trouble when the engine overheats. That is a fact, and every sensible person knows that that is the warning and the lesson of the difficulties we are now facing. I am using the opportunity of these difficulties to start talks with the interested parties, and we have started hearing and agreeing the problem. I have explained to them the broad outline of the plan by which I believe the problem can be mastered.
I am glad to say that, although the talks have only just begun, I have found that a welcome readiness to see the great advantage to all concerned of a national housing plan, in the formulation of which all partners must have a say. If this set


back highlights the dangers of the unregulated past, it also warns us that the remedies cannot be long delayed. Neither the building societies, nor the builders, nor yet the local authorities, can be expected to carry on for many months without knowing where they are going. I am therefore glad to tell the House that before this summer is out we shall have our plans ready for discussion with the interests concerned. After this discussion they will be published, and we are determined to introduce whatever legislation is necessary in the next Session. I think that answers all the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked.
That is my reply to the Amendment which the right hon. Member tells us will be moved.

Mr. Costain: I waited to interrupt until the right hon. Gentleman came to the end of the point he was making. His reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) does not meet the point at all. He said that the building industry does not want to have starts and stops. I agree, but this is one of the biggest stops. It is no good saying that by the end of the summer there will be something, for the building season is between now and the end of the summer.

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the point, and this is one of the things we have been discussing with the hon. Member's colleagues. We have to use this set back as a starting point for a new advance towards a national housing plan, with which I gathered he agreed on the basic principle but which got such derisory attention from other Members of the Opposition.
I reject their censure. The Opposition had 13 years in charge of housing. We witnessed the advantages and the disadvantages of decontrol and the refusal to plan. Certainly a large number of houses were built, but the "liberation of the people from Socialist controls" and the global housing totals announced each year were won at a very heavy cost. A doctrinaire Rent Act destroyed security of tenure for hundreds of thousands. That was something which the right hon. Member did not mention this afternoon. Those were the people least able to protect themselves. The right hon. Member did not mention how private developers were

encouraged to make the shortage of rented accommodation still worse by pulling down huge areas of working class accommodation and replacing them with offices and luxury flats. Meanwhile, local councils which could have relieved the shortage by a pool of cheap rented accommodation were pushed aside by a completely unregulated drive for home ownership. That is the legacy we inherited last October. We have started to deal with it.
The miseries of decontrol will soon be removed by our new Rent Bill. The massive campaign for improving old buildings has been intensified. The frustration of council house building will soon be ended. What remains is the most difficult task of all—the linking together of the private and the public sectors so that both can go forward together in a single coherent national plan [Laughter]. That, as is emphasised by the laughter of hon. Members opposite, was never even attempted by them. It was laughed to scorn by Members opposite, not because many of them are really decontrollers on principle like the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—him I respect—but because they funked a really difficult job. Most of them knew that it was necessary but did not have the courage to tackle it.
I believe the people of this country are ready to see a housing plan of this sort agreed between the Government and their partners in the industry. I believe the building industry and the building societies are also ready. I am encouraged by the beginning of talks to find it is so. All we need is a Government which has the courage to take decisions but who also believe in acting in genuine partnership with all those concerned. It is in this spirit that I ask the House to reject the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

5.15 p.m.

Sir Herbert Butcher: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister resumed his seat to a round of cheers from his hon. Friends. He put the best possible gloss on an extremely poor case.
Before proceeding further, in accordance with the custom of the House, I declare my interest as a director of a building society and also a director of a company engaged in building houses for


sale, although I believe that that is already fairly common knowledge.
I return to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I particularly draw the attention of the House to two remarks he made. One was, "This week I have started talking to the building societies" and a little later he said, "Talks have only just begun." What an approach there must have been in October, November, December and January, when the financial crisis was upon us and the Government did not talk to the building societies and the building industry at that time! Surely the hon. Gentleman should have some forecast, some sense of events to come, and be able to deal with them. Building societies were well aware that there was trouble lying ahead because, as he said, it was in January, despite the rebukes from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they indicated they would not be able to loan so much money.
Twice in his speech today the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that the loans by the building societies during the first quarter of this year were higher than in previous years. He ought to know the reason, but apparently he does not, and I feel it my duty to explain it to him. It is the practice that when a developing builder wishes to erect houses for sale he goes to a reputable building society, shows the plan, indicates the price and interests the building society in supporting it. That is done over a period of two or three years, in many cases, and between well-established builders and reputable building societies these arrangements are honoured to the full. It is because of these arrangements that the amount of money loaned by the building societies during the first quarter of the year was so substantial.
A further thing which the right hon. Gentleman ought to know is that there is a period of delay between the issue of an offer by a building society and the completion of the purchase by the solicitors acting on behalf of the purchaser. What does that mean for the period in which we are now engaged, when the money is very short for building societies? Much of their income from the public is already hypothecated. Some promises have been made to old-established connections for building new houses and

offers to finance existing houses have been agreed between the society and the respective borrower which will be implemented in the near future.
I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, despite all his skill, the advantages of a great public school and a great university, had nothing with which to cheer the young couple, the young couple who voted for him in October and who are now married. Soon there will be a baby and soon they will be wanting a bigger house than they will be able to think about if the Government go on at the present rate of progress. The Government have fully disrupted the building industry. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but perhaps he will examine the case by putting these points to builders whom, I understand, he is to meet in the next few months.
The position is this. Building developments move forward stage by stage. The usual thing is that the roads and the sewers are put in and then a gang of men start building foundations. On to these foundations the bricklayer puts his bricks. As the house goes up, other trades come in. Due to the difficulty which purchasers are experiencing in securing finance, builders are stopping this orderly progression and are diverting all the labour to finishing off completed houses, because they believe that there are two places in which a building site can be left—first, at the foundation level, where the risks of vandalism are very slight; and, secondly, at the completed stage where the houses can be properly looked after, a show-house be available, and of which, when the money is available, the purchaser can secure immediate possession. Thus, all the various trades are now getting completely out of step. Despite the Minister's speech and despite the promises, nothing has been done. All the fine talk we heard this afternoon will not help one girl or one fellow to move into the home they want.
Where is the 3 per cent. interest rate which was talked about in Boston and in Spalding by the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs? It is more than double that now.
Let us examine what should be done. It is not a question of the building societies enduring a temporary difficulty.


The fact is that the people of this country do not believe that the Government intended to keep the promises they made. The Government were out for vote-catching and, as the Minister said, this promise attracted thousands of votes. That is on the record. Thousands of people will curse themselves for believing the promises which were made then.
The Minister talked about orderly planning. The orderly planning we have seen since the Minister took office in October has had these results. It is more difficult for the people to whom he promised a loan at a low rate of interest to get any loan at all, even at a high rate of interest. Despite the promises and the pledges of increased house building, fewer houses will be built. The right hon. Gentleman told us that no one builder whom he asked could give him a figure. Of course no one builder could. Let him ask the officials in his box under the Gallery for advice as to the number they expect. I believe that they will certainly accept a figure of 50,000 to 60,000.
What is needed is this. It is necessary to insert and bring to the help of the people about the same amount of money for about the same number of houses as was available last year. The flood gates should not be opened so that there is any amount of money coming forward, because that would increase prices all the way round. On the other hand, money should not be limited without proper attention being given to the number of advances on which it should be made.
I believe that there are four steps which ought to be considered, and at least one of which it is essential that the Government should take. The first is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), a restarting of the House Purchase and Housing Act. That would help people living in the older houses, on the one hand, to sell their houses and move into something better, if they so desire. It would also help others who have not previously been house owners to start in a modest way with a rate of repayment which they can well afford.
However, if because it was a jolly good Act introduced by the Tories the

Minister has political prejudices against revising it, let him bring in one of his own. The doctrine is already instituted as to how it can be worked. Recovery from the Treasury worked perfectly well. Let the Minister bring in a House Purchase (Young Persons) Act, and suggest that it is to be available only on similar terms for young people who have been married since the date of the election. That might help a bit. Why not do it?
If the Minister says that it would mean legislation, I ask him to appreciate that, as a White Paper to be issued tomorrow is to be debated next Thursday, it is possible for business to be arranged with remarkable dispatch. If that can be done by one side of the House of Commons, what can be done by both sides?
Thirdly, if the Minister does not like that, he might introduce a Bill assisting people who have never purchased houses of their own before. I think that this would probably be the least satisfactory of the schemes.
I think that the right thing to do would be to enable the building societies to go to the bank as a bank of last resort and borrow from the bank a sufficient sum of money to enable them to advance the same amount of sterling in 1965 as they advanced in 1964. It would be right, I think, to couple with that a requirement that at least the same number of houses should be financed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley suggested that legislation might be required. He may be right. My own feeling is that the building societies are entitled to borrow from the banks.

Mr. Heath: I said that I doubted whether legislation was required.

Sir H. Butcher: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. He and I, as always, are in accord. The answer is that legislation is not required. Therefore, this scheme can be started tomorrow if the legal advisers of the Government accord. If it can be started tomorrow, why is it not being started tomorrow? Why has there been this long delay?
The Minister spoke of the bright and beautiful plans he has for the future. That is not what the Government won their thousands of votes on in October of


last year. It was on the specific pledges in which they are in default. When the Prime Minister was in New York, he told the Americans that we were going to kick the hell out of them. It is this Government who have kicked the hell out of the building industry. It is this Government who have kicked the hell out of the building societies. It is this Government who have kicked the hell out of the young people whom they deluded. Judging by the faces behind them, they have kicked the hell out of their own supporters, too.

The Chairman (Dr. Horace King): I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) in the midst of his eloquent speech, but I must remind him and the Committee that it is not in order to call attention to the presence of strangers, unless there is some deliberate motive for doing so.

Sir H. Butcher: I apologise to the Chair.

5.27 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: This side of the Committee should be greatly indebted to the Opposition for having given my right hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity of putting before the House of Commons and the country his comprehensive and thorough approach to the housing problem. What has bedevilled the housing situation for generations is the way in which the needs of the people of this country for homes of their own have been approached in an attitude of splinter—of differentiation—between one set of people and another, between the owner-occupier, the council tenant and the tenant of a private landlord.
I believe that this problem is much simpler and much less serious than is often supposed. We are still spending not much more than 3 per cent. of our national income on housing. It is absolutely absurd for a talented and prosperous nation like ours to be unable to provide for the simplest and most basic human need, which is a home to live in. We have run into unnecessary difficulties in the past because of the separateness of these approaches. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be very radical in preparing his long-term plans. For

instance, I do not see the logic of allowing Income Tax relief on mortgage repayments, which helps the millionaire buying a mansion, whereas the postman who is buying a semi-detached house and who has three or four children and who is, therefore, not in the Income Tax bracket at all is not assisted in any way. I hope that the Government will give attention to this aspect.
If we are to make money at low interest rates available for housing, it is very important that my right hon. Friend should turn his able and agile mind to the possibility of some control of the prices of houses. It would be absolutely useless and would defeat the purpose which we have in mind if we made available to a young married couple or a middle-aged couple a sum of money at a reduced rate of interest and reduced cost of assistance from public funds if the only result was that the price of the house which last year would have been £4,000 went up to £6,000. How is their budget helped if the interest is reduced but the capital sum is increased? It is worth reminding the House that the price of new houses has gone up since 1956 by 55 per cent. I thought that this was an impossibly high figure, but as I am quoting from the Bulletin of the Building Societies' Association I must be correct in passing this figure on to the House.
I know the opinion of many hon. Member opposite that it is scarcity of houses which has led to the increase in their cost, but I do not think that we can let the needs of so many of our people fall a victim to the jungle of supply and demand without any regulation. Nor do I think that this is necessarily true, because I find from the same impeccable source that in 1964 the cost of new housing went up by 8 per cent. compared with 7 per cent. in 1963, although more houses were built in 1964 than were built in 1963. I believe that the people's need for housing is so infinite that it will be generations before any equation between supply and demand could make a real impact on this difficult problem.
I was specially interested in reading in the Evening News last night about some houses in Brighton the price of which has been reduced by £1,250. The


reason for it is a dearth of money available for mortgage. The Evening News said:
Ways must be found to make more money available to the young, would-be buyer to enable the housing drive to continue full pelt.
To turn slightly aside from my main argument, I do not suppose that the builder who cut his price by £1,250 has come to great harm or suffered serious loss. I should like to know what profit was left to him after that cut.
We distort the whole problem as long as we allow completely uncontrolled profiteering to go on in this important sector. I serve notice on my right hon. Friend that I should be rather grieved if we made public money available without accompanying it by some system of control, otherwise the increased availability of mortgages would force up prices and nobody except the builder would be any better off in the long run.
This question of interest rates which we have to consider, particularly today in relation to the owner-occupier, is tremendously relevant to local authority building and to the private sector because reduction in one sector obviously affects the demand elsewhere. I have found that there are great advantages in using local authorities for making mortgage arrangements. The local authority which I know best is able to put the services of a surveyor, a valuer and solicitors in the town clerk's department to help people to carry out what can be the very expensive process of house-purchase more economically than when they make ordinary arrangements. I would hope that my right hon. Friend would be looking at the whole subject of housing finance in its widest aspect. Obviously the housing subsidies play a part in this and it would be only fair for people who want to buy their own homes to be helped similarly.
I am sure that it would be more helpful to local authorities, as well as to private builders and those who wanted to buy their houses privately, if cheap money were made available even if subsidies as well as Income Tax reliefs on mortgages were abolished. At the moment in the borough which I know best subsidies are working out at less than the interest which the council has to pay to moneylenders. I see from

the Report of the Municipal Treasurers that this is the pattern for the whole country. This seems to me to be a piece of most absurd book-keeping which I hope will be reviewed.
I am haunted by a remark made at the 1963 annual conference of the Royal Institute of British Architects by the city architect of Sheffield who set out the economics of a modest three-bedroomed house bought for £2,500 at 6 per cent. interest over 60 years. The result was 53 per cent. for interest payments, 17 per cent. for cost of building, 3 per cent. for land—it must be cheap in Sheffield—15 per cent. for rates and 12 per cent. for maintenance. The Sheffield city architect's comment was:
This poor little house is itself answerable for only 17 per cent. of its cost.
I submit to my right hon. Friend that while we are basing our housing programme in any centre on this sort of arithmetic we shall not get any sense into the housing drive.
It is very easy to exaggerate the difficulties, but I believe that we can deal with them. I want to see the local authorities used much more fully. It has to be said that if we believe that housing is a social service which has to be supplied to our people over its widest range then obviously separate arrangements must he made for housing finance. Much of the comment in the Press which has referred to the possibility of a reduction in the Bank Rate as a major way of helping is irrelevant. I am not the only one to think this. I come back to the invaluable document from the Building Societies' Association. In February the Association's chairman said:
To lead borrowers to expect a reduction in mortgage rates should there be a reduction in Bank rate is both dangerous and false, because there is not the slightest hope that their rates could be reduced on such a change, unless, by chance, it coincided in time with a considerable upsurge in the flow of savings …
This is of no comfort to those who are seeking a home of their own. This is why I am confident that my right hon. Friend, by making these special and different arrangements which will take housing finance out of the generality of the money market, will make a fundamental and lasting contribution towards solving what is in itself a simple, basic and elementary question.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) drew attention to part of the Labour Party's 1964 election manifesto. I make no apology for returning to the section which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. It would not be possible to debate this subject seriously today without reminding the Government of the pledges which they made to the electorate and from which they obtained so many additional votes. In the manifesto, the Labour Party declared unequivocally as follows:
Labour will:
(i) Introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing. … This policy of special favourable rates will apply both to intending owner occupiers and to local authorities building houses to let.
There is no division between the three parties represented in the House or, I suspect, between Members as individuals, on the desirability of achieving such a worth-while objective. The country at large desires a system which will enable people to obtain new homes easily and at favourable rates. We know that slum clearance is proceeding too slowly. Far too many people are still living in conditions which would have been archaic even at the beginning of the century and which today are a disgrace in a modern civilisation.
Lack of good housing has created a situation in which many bad landlords have been able to flourish, and this has caused grave concern to everyone inside and outside the House. It should not be forgotten that bad housing not only creates bad landlords but creates bad tenants. It is not entirely their fault.
Bad housing and squalid conditions, through their psychological effect, are a ready source of crime and moral decline generally. How can any young couple setting out in life with the problems of bringing up a young family hope to succeed in their marriage if they are asked to live in conditions which are often quite intolerable.
It is not, therefore, untypical of a radical party seeking to form the Government that it should give such priority in its election campaign to the need for building new houses rapidly, enabling local authorities to provide additional homes at reasonable rents and giving the

opportunity to young people and others to buy their homes at fair and low rates of mortgage interest.
This policy of Her Majesty's Government, as it was expressed in the election campaign, had for some of us the added merit that it was not doctrinaire Socialism. On the contrary, one of its aims was to encourage the spread of ownership and wealth among individuals. If some of us were a little surprised at this advance, we were none the less pleased to see it.
The election speeches of leaders of the Labour Party, the present Government, led the electorate to believe that, whatever else might take second place in a Labour Government's programme, there could be no danger of housing being put at the bottom of the list. For this reason, perhaps, more than any other, I was bitterly disappointed in the speech of the Minister this afternoon. He did not present us with a dynamic programme which had been carefully evolved, not necessarily in the 13 years while the Government were in Opposition, but in the last six months. There has been ample time to anticipate the present situation and ample time to produce a programme of correction.
I am not suggesting—it would be unreasonable to do so—that the Minister could possibly have solved the problems of financing local authorities or giving assistance to building societies in the short time in which the Government have been in office, but I do suggest that there has been an opportunity for taking precautionary measures to prevent the development of a situation the danger of which has been clear to many people for a long time. My noble Friend Lord Wade, in his maiden speech in another place, pointed out that, for more than nine months, the building societies had been warning both the past Administration and the present Government of the danger of the situation. Clearly, there has been an opportunity to do something, but the opportunity has been lost.
I recognise the sincere and genuine disappointment which must be felt by members of Her Majesty's Government that they have been unable to fulfil their election pledge in this matter and have been unable, so far at least, to indicate when they will be able to do so. I shall


not rehash the arguments about responsibility, whether it is because they inherited a financial crisis that they did not expect, because they are no longer relevant. The, financial crisis was known to Her Majesty's Government at least six, if not seven, months ago. Therefore, they have had opportunity to plan within the framework of the conditions which they inherited.
It is disturbing that, far from having improved, the housing situation, in spite of the intentions of the Government as expressed at the time of the election, has deteriorated. This is something which must be answered, and it must be faced fairly and honestly by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. To take one of the existing problems, the building societies are having great difficulty at present in attracting investment. I shall not labour a point which has been made already more than adequately by previous speakers.
It may well be that this is only a temporary state of affairs. I have no lack of confidence in the ability of the building societies to overcome their problems. They form one of the most important financial institutions of this country, and I have complete confidence in them, as I am sure every hon. Member has. But the fact remains that they have a problem which prevents them from making advances at favourable rates to people who wish to become home owners.
It has been suggested, not in this debate but outside the House, that building societies retain far too much money as reserve. I do not accept this. On the contrary, I believe that one of the great pillars of strength of the building societies is that they know that they can always meet a call, however large or however sudden, and one of the reasons why they have been so successful in attracting investment, in spite of the comparatively low rate of interest which is frequently offered, is that people know that it is a good, sound and safe investment. If any inroads were to be made into their reserves, some of that confidence would be lost, and the consequences would be disastrous not only for the building societies themselves but for the economy of the country as a whole.
The Government could, and I believe should, give immediate assistance to the building societies. One or two suggestions have been put forward from this side of the Committee. One that the Minister should at least consider is whether it would not be possible for the Public Works Loans Board to allow access to funds by the building societies, even as a temporary measure to assist them over the present situation.
I think it is also very important that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look again at the Corporation Tax and the Capital Gains Tax as they affect the building societies because, quite clearly, there is an important issue at stake and one which will affect the house building programme to which the Government are so clearly pledged and action upon which is expected throughout the country.
The Government could do worse than initiate discussions between the building societies and some of the major insurance houses to see whether sums could not be made available to them from that source. It might well be that, if a temporary tax incentive were granted to insurance houses, some of the very considerable capital reserves for which investment is sought by many of the insurance companies could be made available to building societies to assist them over the present situation.
Another matter to which the Minister should draw the Chancellor's attention is the question of what will be the effect of the new 5 per cent. Post Office savings account programme on investment in building societies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) put that question specifically to the Chancellor but received no satisfactory answer.
I believe that a far more serious situation exists for the local authorities. Many have been compelled to cease making loans for house purchase because of the rate which they have had to pay to borrow the money. One model borough in my constituency, Saltash, has just resumed making loans for private house purchase and is charging at the rate of 7¼ per cent. for a 25–year loan and 7⅛ per cent. for a 30–year loan.
Saltash makes no secret of the fact that it is not anxious to encourage young


people to tie this kind of millstone around their necks, but I believe that Saltash and other local authorities making these loans are abundantly right to take this line. Yet, what a disappointment it is, what a bitter blow it represents, to the young couples who after the last election genuinely believed that the Government would be in a position to offer them homes at lower rates of interest. Whatever the Minister may say, the fact is that today those young couples are compelled to pay a very much higher rate than previously.
I am not out of sympathy with the Government in this situation. I do not attempt to disguise that I recognise their problem, but they must have a programme to meet it, and it is that which we demand should be presented to the Committee. I believe that the problem facing the Government is threefold.
First, they must provide money for the continuation of the present rate of house building and purchase. Secondly, they must provide money for the necessary expansion. Finally, they have to provide the money to maintain their election pledge to reduce mortgage rates to local authority and private purchasers. It is not sufficient to blame the last Administration for shortsightedness or absence of planning. A properly phased programme without extravagant promises must be offered now. We have a national plan for education and a national plan for roads. Why cannot we have a national plan for house building, which is what we expected from a Government who have always maintained their faith in planning?
If money is the main factor the Government should face up to one question squarely. If the Government are to spend a sum which might be as large as £600 million in compensating the shareholders in the steel industry in order to nationalise that industry, that will bring small comfort to those who are living together in houses in overcrowded conditions. Moreover, if after taking office again after a break of 13 years they decide that instead of giving priority to their pledge to produce more homes at better rates of interest, they give priority to the nationalisation of steel, then I say that, like the Bourbon kings of France after their restoration, they will be found to

have learnt nothing and to have forgotten nothing and they will go to the country unforgiven.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Williams: Save for some of his digressions, I do not really disagree with very much that was said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), nor do I think that we should consider only the long-term answers. But the hon. Gentleman did not, of course, tell us what is of some interest—whether or not he is for us or against us on this Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is against the Government."] The hon. Gentleman has many hon. Friends answering for him, but no doubt when the Division comes he will answer for himself.

Mr. Bessell: I thought that I had made the position of my party and of myself quite clear. If I did not, let me assure the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) that we shall vote against the Government tonight.

Mr. Williams: It is good to know where the Liberals stand on at least one occasion. There can be little real dispute that the present situation of housing and housing loans is one that must demand and obtain from the Government an attempt at long-term radical solution. But, since the Opposition wished to raise the debate in this form, I am puzzled because the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) did little more than pose again the problems with which the Government are faced. He did not attempt to make any real answer.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Government had stultified the Conservative legacy of 43,000 houses in the pipeline which, he said, the Government were now cutting back. This is an example of the lack of clarity and of the woolliness with which the Conservatives approach every problem and certainly of the way in which they have approached every attack that they have made on the Government. What is important at this stage, when considering a long-term solution, is that the reality of the situation with which we are immediately faced should be seen. I agree that the problem is not fundamentally difficult. It is difficult of solution, but the problem itself is clear.
We are faced with two quite separate difficulties demanding different answers, and they must be kept separate. There is the difficulty of what one might call the capital failure, of which the building societies in particular are complaining and the result of which, we have been told unceasingly in the newspapers of late, is that building is to be substantially cut back. Figures amounting to 50,000 and even 75,000 fewer houses to be built have been mentioned. There is also the quite separate and distinct difficulty of high interest rates.
The hon. Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) spoke of their unwillingness at this stage to attempt any longer to excuse the Government for high interest rates on the basis that they knew when they came to power that they were faced with a d difficult economic situation.

Mr. Bassell: I did not say that. What I said was that I could not forgive the Government for failing to produce a plan to overcome this.

Mr. Williams: I do not think that there is any real difference between us. What the hon. Gentleman is now saying is that, faced with the difficulty of the present interest situation, the Government should have dealt with that in order to meet the housing mortgage crisis.
This is a grossly unfair charge to make against the Government. My object is not so much to convert the Opposition, for that is impossible, but to allow the country to see the problem through my spectacles. It is a grossly unfair accusation to make against the Government, for the fact is that no Government coming into power in the economic situation with which the Government were faced would have been able to solve all the differing claimant demands from people who for many years had had their rightful dues denied them by an indifferent Government. Since we have been in power, we have been faced with the problem of trying to put right things like pensions and the Health Service, all making unceasing demands on us and forcing us to face a system of priorities which would not necessarily have been of our own choosing.
In that situation, this is not a problem which can be solved in isolation, and the country ought readily to recognise that, even though the problem cannot immedi-

ately be solved, a party which has kept its other promises is not to be condemned for failing to keep this promise and is to be believed when it says that it is its intention in the near future to keep this promise also.
Even this is not the most serious aspect of the problem now facing the Government, for although it is true that interest rates are high, and although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) that the Government at some time must be prepared to offer some kind of solution if high interest rates continue, even in the near future, a solution along the lines suggested by Professor Merrett and Alan Sykes—that people who do not pay Income Tax should still be allowed a rebate as though they paid Income Tax, for even if the interest figure were 7 per cent. the effective rate for those paying Income Tax would be about 4–3 per cent.—there is a much more urgent and difficult problem about which there appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding, and that is the so-called capital failure.
It is appalling that the building industry should lend itself, as it has, to the suggestion that the cut-back as a result of the capital failure might mean a reduction of about 50,000 to 75,000 houses. This is not true and since the building industry has been meeting the Minister it has admitted that it is not true. In these circumstances, it is utterly false to make use of this kind of propaganda and to create the sort of panic against which even the building societies themselves are now registering their protests.
I was puzzled by the speech of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. Although he did not tell us—perhaps he should have done—he is a director of a building society.

Sir H. Butcher: I opened my speech by at once indicating that I was a director of a building society and also of a company engaged in houses for sale.

Mr. Williams: I apologise. My attention must have been drawn away. I was not making any serious criticism of the hon. Member, but I apologise. He is the director of a building society. I have not had the opportunity of knowing


what the building societies have told the Minister, but what building societies other than the hon. Gentleman's have said publicly is that the last thing they want in the present situation is to have a momentary and temporary difficulty of theirs elevated into a panic.
The building societies themselves are not beyond criticism for the way in which they have been led into their present situation. I think that it was The Economist which in January said that what the building societies were suffering from was not a shortage of finance but a shortage of nerve. What they have failed to do is to attempt to create for themselve a situation in which they cease to be as vulnerable as they have continued to be against every change in the monetary climate. The problem of the building societies is that for all their experience they have not yet learned whether to borrow short or long term. Every adjustment in the Bank Rate, certainly since I have been a Member of Parliament—and in that time there have been many—has always caught the building societies short, and invariably, certainly in recent years, they have altered their terms to meet changes in the Bank Rate.

Sir Erie Errington: I follow what the hon. Gentleman is arguing and what he is saying about the building societies, but surely the real issue is the Government's promise at the election that they would lower interest rates and put them on an entirely lower basis. It is possible for the hon. Gentleman to criticise the building societies, although I do not agree with that, but during the election campaign the Labour Party said that it would reduce interest rates and give specially favourable terms to borrowers.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member has not sat throughout the debate.

Sir E. Errington: I have.

Mr. Williams: What I began by saying was that I thought that there were two quite separate problems and that the Government's undertaking was to be accepted and that in the long-term they would yet fulfil this promise as they had fulfilled others. The hon. Gentleman may dispute it, but that was my original thesis.
There is certainly a need for the building societies to put their own house in order in relation to their short-term and long-term borrowing and lending. They need to reorganise their borrowing procedures so that they may achieve greater harmony between their borrowing and lending. I was going to suggest many ways in which it might have been done. They are not unknown to the building societies because nothing that I am saying is original. There are other sources from which they can get their information. If that had been done, this problem would not have arisen.
The fact is that the building societies financially are still enormously strong. But they are in a difficult situation because they have too much liquidity. If, faced with difficulties, they had maintained the situation and continued lending they would have been in a better position to come to the Government and ask for help. [Interruption.] Faced with a temporary difficult situation, one must meet it with extraordinary measures. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but laughter is never a substitute for argument. What I am seeking to do is to put forward what I believe is a possible solution to an immediate difficulty.

Mr. Bessell: Mr. Bessell rose—

Mr. Williams: I cannot give way again.
Although I have not said half of what I wanted to say, I must be content with this. This situation has long-term consequences of very great significance about which my right hon. Friend has spoken and of which I believe the Government will take notice and look, as I hope, not to the building societies for as much assistance as they have provided in the past but rather to local authorities. Whatever the long-term solutions may be, the main gravamen of the thesis on this other aspect of the two matters with which I have attempted to deal is this. Bearing in mind the difficulties and problems in many respects with which the Government have been faced, it is, in my view, a gross abuse of the duties of Parliament at this stage to make an attack, remembering that during this debate a good deal of the attack has been blunted. Many admissions have been made that the situation is not what it has been cracked up to be.
The case which the Government have put forward has been amply justified, and the Opposition's censure on the Government is utterly unjustified.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) saw fit to indulge in an attack on the building societies, which I thought was unfair. I was the more sorry because, in many ways, I preferred his speech to that of the Minister. The hon. and learned Gentleman at least recognised that there was an urgent and difficult situation. In all honesty, I do not think that the Minister did.
In the last week or two I have been wondering how a situation which it was plain to those of us with no official responsibilities was developing and of which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) gave warning a week or two ago, had been allowed to develop without any action being taken by the Government or by the responsible Minister. When I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, the matter became only too plain. The smug satisfaction in which he indulged and his complete refusal to recognise awkward and embarrassing facts gave the clue to how what is undoubtedly a serious situation had been allowed to develop in complete breach, as the Committee has been reminded more than once, of the Government's pledges and without a finger being raised to check it. The whole attitude of the right hon. Gentleman made that only too plain.
What is the remedy which the Minister offers us? We are faced with a situation of real seriousness. I hope that no one denies that. The hon. and learned Member did not deny it. If anyone denies it, I invite his attention to the Pre3s statement formally put out by the Federation of Registered House Builders, after its meeting in London on the 23rd of this month. It referred to a survey which the Federation had undertaken through its widely spread membership and said:
This information, although not covering the whole country, clearly shows that even at this stage at least one prospective purchaser out of four will not be able to get a house this year and that the situation is bound to get worse unless immediate steps are taken to make it easier for purchasers to borrow the money they need".

In comments afterwards, the President of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers said:
Bearing in mind that private builders put up and sell nearly 225,000 houses a year, if this process continues the effect on the nation's housing programme could well be disastrous. The question is: does the Government really want to deny home ownership to people and thereby force them into rented accommodation which is already severely limited?
I think that hon. Members will repeat that question with more pointedness after hearing the Minister's speech.
Faced by a situation described not by political opponents of his but by the responsible business body concerned, what does the Minister offer us? He said that he was glad to tell hon. Members that by the summer he would have some plans which he would be able to discuss with the outside bodies concerned with a view to introducing legislation next Session. Then he added that he is to have—he has not, apparently, had—talks with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the rôle which Exchequer finance could play in a national housing plan. That is all we had. In view of the situation about which evidence has been given by people completely independent of political allegiance, it is clear that the housing programme is faced with a most serious situation this year.
That was a very remarkable attitude for the responsible Minister to adopt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know that we need complain about his absence. His presence made no contribution to the debate. However, the right hon. Gentleman—and I am sorry that he is not present, for this reason—made some extraordinary statements about the building societies He referred with complete detachment to a setback to the building societies. There was no suggestion that this was a setback to the Government's housing programme or to the Labour Party's pledges. Then he made a most remarkable observation which reduced even his own hon. Friends to expressions of surprise. He said that he had to help the building societies to overcome the lack of confidence in them caused by Tory speeches.
It is not Tories who have criticised the building societies. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who attacked them when they took a step which, as my right


hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) reminded us, if they had not taken would have caused an even greater shortage of funds than there is now. Let the Chief Secretary to the Treasury speak for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor if he needs to protect the building societies.
The right hon. Gentleman made another observation—I do not know whether the Chief Secretary will be able to explain it, even with his considerable powers of exposition; he has a good deal to explain as it is—that there could not be permitted a completely uncontrolled increase in building society advances. What does that mean? In the circumstances in which they are being cut back, it has a certain brutal irony about it.
Does that mean that if, as a result of their efforts—because they will not get any help, apparently, from the Government for a long time—the building societies can restore the situation, the Government will interfere with their advances? If it does not mean that, why did the Minister say it? What was the purpose of that? The Minister gave an indication that in his great building plan for the future, private enterprise building would not go unchecked. Was that a threat of building licensing? Was it a hint of that? If not, again, why was it said?
I am glad that the Minister has returned in time to answer perhaps one of my questions. He made a virtue of the fact that he had seen the building societies. It was this week, was it not, after this debate had been announced? Would he have seen them at all if my right hon. and hon. Friends had not given notice that we would raise this subject? When the Minister saw them, did he put before them a plan for assisting on the rates of interest? If the right hon. Gentleman does not answer this, the Committee will draw its own conclusions. The right hon. Gentleman summoned them because of this debate and he put no considered proposals before them, even though he has been six months in office, with all the pledges of his party behind him.
The situation is one for which the Government are responsible. Indeed, they have achieved—I must pay tribute to them—what had previously been

thought by all economists to be impossible: a shortage of funds for building and very high rates of interest. They have succeeded in achieving them both at the same time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley said, it is the result of their policies—high taxation, high rates of interest, the shortage and drawing off and diversion of funds in other directions, grinding taxation and adverse effects on savings. The Committee knows this. People outside know it.
It is not for the right hon. Gentleman—as I have said this in his absence, I say it now to his face—to refer with an air of airy detachment to this setback to the building societies when what is happening is that, as a direct result of Government policy, matters to which he and his hon. Friends are pledged are going by default. It is their fault.
Had the Minister seen the faces of his hon. Friends behind him as he was speaking this afternoon, he would have noted it. It is a sad and sorry and, I would say, dishonourable thing that after six months in office, faced by this situation, all that the right hon. Gentleman can offer is plans to be discussed with the outside bodies in the summer and legislation next Session. Why next Session?
The right hon. Gentleman himself, in an earlier Parliamentary Answer, said that there was not time for the legislation. Is that really true? Is such legislation ready? If it is not ready, the right hon. Gentleman's remark about parliamentary time was irrelevant and misleading. If it is ready, it is a rather curious example of the Government's priorities that they can find room for the Steel Bill, a Measure which is hardly likely to pass "on the nod". They can find time for a Measure to permit trade union officials with impunity to victimise individuals and drive them out of their jobs, but they cannot find time for a Measure designed to carry out their own election pledges.
On the rate of interest, which is one of those pledges, I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that it can be argued that it is unreasonable to expect a Government, even a Government poised for resolute action, full of the new thinking and all that, to carry out all their election pledges at once. What


we can criticise the Government for is, having promised and pledged themselves up to the hilt to secure lower interest rates, not doing something about it when, under their rule, those interest rates actually rise, and rise to the highest level since the war. The pledges are absolutely clear: implicitly that funds shall be available; explicitly that they shall be available at cheap rates.
We know the facts. We know, as I have said, that building society rates are the highest since the war, and the building societies are criticised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for doing that in a situation which he has created. We know what the local authority rates are when local authorities are able to lend at all. We know that many of them have given up lending. Among those who are lending, as compared with the 6¾ per cent. of the building societies we have the Greater London Council at 7¼ or 7⅛ per cent. according to the length of loan and a great many others over 7 per cent., imposing a heavy burden on just those young married couples to whom the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made those emotional appeals at the General Election.
What is so extraordinary is that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not seen this coming. Warned again and again in the Press, warned by the Federation of Registered House Builders, warned of the consequences, they did absolutely nothing. The most startling thing of all was the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, when he was rebuking the building societies for raising their rates of interest. On 19th January, he said in the House:
I believe that many of the building societies are being unduly pessimistic about their capacity to raise money in present circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1965 Vol. 705, c. 23.]
It is, indeed, fortunate for those who want to buy a home that the building societies had wiser financial judgment than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His record in this is astonishing. On 23rd November—this is quoted at the head of a leading article in The Times today—the right hon. Gentleman said:
We are urgently considering whether some means can be found of mitigating the severity of the increase in Bank Rate on the housing programme.
Six months ago, the Chancellor said that he was "urgently considering" it.

If he had been only actively considering it, I suppose it would have been a year. What is so startling is the way that the Government have ignored all these warnings on something which a sense of honour, if nothing else, should have caused them to take action.
We have the Minister of Housing and Local Government pointing out, with naïve surprise, that there are still plenty of people actually wishing to borrow. Of course there are. But what, despite the high rate of interest, they cannot do, is to get the funds. It is a little brutal of the right hon. Gentleman to make a virtue of the fact that many people are seeking the possibility of getting a home when his Government have denied it them.
Let us be clear what the Government are pledged to do. Take their election manifesto. Page 15 states:
At the same time, we shall go ahead with a sustained programme to provide more homes at prices that ordinary people can afford.
Labour will:
(i) Introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing.
Then there is another document entitled "When Labour Wins". This document is adorned with a picture of the Prime Minister, which was probably taken some years ago. It is a picture, in every sense of the term, of a promising young man, but when Labour wins this is what happens. The promise was to bring down interest rates for both intending owner-occupiers and local authorities building houses to let.
The election address of the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State, decorated again with Brown and Belper, said:
Special low interest rates for house purchase by intending owner-occupiers—or local authorities—will halt the soaring cost of homes.
We had pledge after pledge from the party opposite. The Prime Minister's election address said:
100 per cent. mortgages, lower interest rates and cheaper legal charges will help those who wish to buy.
That sort of pledge was made speech after speech, and in broadcast after broadcast. Indeed, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in one of those bursts of frankness which are so attractive on his part, said with truth that this pledge had won for the party opposite the


votes of thousands of young married couples, and, I would add, of thousands more young people who want to be young married couples, but cannot be until they get a home in which to live. This is the result. The right hon. Gentleman says, "There will be discussions, producing a plan which I can show to the outside bodies in the summer, with a view to legislation next summer".
Does the right hon. Gentleman think for a moment that if those who voted for him, as he said on the strength of this pledge, had known that after six months of Labour Government the building societies' lending rate would be 6¾ per cent., and that the local authority loan rate would be 7¼ per cent., and that even at those rates many people would be turned away, he would be sitting there at all today? The Treasury Bench is so littered with pledges on this subject that it looks like a pawn shop. All that we are offered is no action at all, an attack on building societies, and an attack on those who provide housing by private enterprise. We are given a vague promise of a national housing plan some time next year. That is all that the people outside are offered.
I sometimes wonder, and I am wondering even more now, whether the Government really care about home ownership. We do. Under the Conservative Government, the percentage of homes owned by the people who lived in them rose from 29 per cent. in 1951 to 44 per cent. last year, a tremendous social development. We care about this. Do right hon. Gentlemen opposite care? I though that I detected in the right hon. Gentleman's speech a preference for the council estate, for its arbitrary bureaucracy, with every door and window painted the colour which the borough surveyor likes. I thought that I detected a desire to cut back private building.

Mr. Crossman: Nonsense.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense", but that has been the policy of his party in the past. Let me remind him what was said by a greater figure in the Labour Party than himself. Mr. Aneurin Bevan said:
Inside the Labour Party, there has always been argument as to whether we ought to have allowed any private building for sale at all.

—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2256.]
He also made an attack on building societies, and here, perhaps, he was a forerunner of the right hon. Gentleman, when he said that building societies were little if anything better than moneylenders, and that to describe them as building societies was a complete misnomer. What we want to know, and what I am certain people outside want to know, is not only whether the Government can devise means to help those who want to buy a home, but whether they want to do so, and whether they are prepared to make the effort to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the article that he wrote in the New Statesman some years ago, entitled "The Stimulus of Defeat". He will probably have to write another under that title before long. I often wonder whether he feels that home ownership means that people living in their own homes perhaps become Tories, I do not know, but he must realise that our people have an enormous urge to own a home of their own, and not to be dependent on any landlord, however amiable, or any local authority, however benevolent.
That is not particularly a craving of the very rich. On the whole, they live in rented flats and villas. It is a characteristic of some of the best, most effective and active of our people. We in the Conservative Party have sought to serve this during the last 13 years, with the result that there has been this massive increase in home ownership, with the immense contribution that that has made to human happiness. It has meant the security of a home of one's own, with which no local authority and no landlord can interfere, as a basis for family life for bringing up children decently. Security in a home of one's own is a powerful urge. That is why people are prepared to make great sacrifices. That is why they are prepared to pay even the present rates, if they can get an advance at all, to have a home of their own and to live self-respectfully in their own homes.
This is a deep urge in our people. It is an urge which the right hon. Gentleman frustrates at his peril. The pledges which have been made are clear and explicit, and I cannot see how any Minister could fail to take some steps now to implement them, or resign, because they


are so clear and explicit. Far more important than the transient pledges of a transient party is the real social issue which underlies this, that of the Englishman owning and living in his own home.
This is the issue which the Government thwart at their peril. Unless they redeem their pledges, unless they take effective action to help, either in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend, or in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), they will lose a great deal more in the estimation of the British people than the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends realise. After this performance, and after his speech, I cannot see how any sensible elector can ever trust a Labour Party pledge again.
I beg to move that Class VI, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government) be reduced by £1,000.

6.39 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): It is because I share many of the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the desirability of home ownership, a sentiment which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall not get very far if I cannot make a statement like that.
It is because I share the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member that I wanted to say how glad I was to hear him repeat those phrases, and how sorry I was that in the course of a 25-minute speech he did not suggest one thing which would help. There was not even the suspicion of a policy, no idea at all of what he would do, or what we should do, beyond requesting the resignation of my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I am happy to know that apart from one sugge3tion made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher), right hon. and hon. Members opposite have made exactly the same proposals for dealing with this problem as they made during their 13 years of office—none.
What is it that we are supposed to be dealing with? In every speech by an hon. Member opposite the problem that has been put before us has been represented as the crisis facing the building societies and the lack of finance for mortgages.

The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) said, "There is an acute shortage of mortgage funds. The process of changing houses is grinding to a halt." The hon. Member for Holland with Boston, referring to the present situation, said, "It has completely disrupted the building industry. It has kicked hell out of the building industry." The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said, "There is a financial crisis facing the building societies."
All those statements are grossly inaccurate, grossly exaggerated, and grossly damaging to the building societies. The building societies would be most grateful if right hon. and hon. Members opposite would stop creating a lack of confidence in the societies in this way.

Mr. Bessell: Mr. Bessell rose—

Mr. Diamond: I will give way in a moment. I will not follow the example of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who took more time than he has left me.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman knows that it was arranged that I should sit down at twenty minutes to seven—and I sat down at twenty-two minutes to seven.

Mr. Diamond: That is quite right. The fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman failed to give way once, although he had more time at his disposal.
My first point is that the real facts, not only with regard to building but with regard to building finance, both in terms of local authority loans and building society loans, are that we have just had published for the last quarter the highest ever figures of lending and of building. That is putting the matter in its proper context. As for wrecking the building industry, and knocking hell out of it, and completely disrupting it, as was said by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, who is a director of a building company and also of a building society, in every single category of trade of building employee there are more jobs looking for men than men looking for jobs. There is no evidence, therefore, that if a single additional loan were granted there would be an additional man laying an additional brick.
What we are not concerned with is the crisis which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to create. We are concerned with the regular flow of finance for providing homes. We are concerned with an increase in the provision of homes, and we are anxious that there should be an increase in the number of home owners. We are anxious that houses should be built for people to live in, both for rent and to own. But we must find out whether there is a real crisis or a "phoney" crisis.
Every quotation that I have given from speeches made today—quite apart from the propaganda write-up to which my right hon. Friend referred, which has taken place previously—shows that what the Opposition are trying to do is to build up a "phoney" crisis, which, the building societies tell me, is damaging them and will continue to damage them.

Mr. Bessell: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that in quoting part of my speech he failed to give it its proper meaning. He should have quoted the rest of it, in which I expressed complete, and absolute confidence in the future and stability of the building societies.

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Member did that he had no reason grossly to exaggerate the present situation in order to make party political capital out of it. If he is so confident, he should not be so ambivalent. That is the trouble with some Liberals; one never knows where one is with them.

Dr. Wyndham Davies: Dr. Wyndham Davies (Birmingham, Perry Barr) rose—

The Chairman: Order. If the Minister does not give way the hon. Member must not persist in rising.

Mr. Diamond: We now have to face three questions, which the Opposition have put to us. First, why are the rates high when we promised they would be lower; secondly, why is there not sufficient finance available; and, thirdly, have we any plans for the future? As for the lack of finance, I have indicated the present position. We have reached an all-time high, both in lending and in building.
If we start out in a year with what I can only call an enormous spring flush, and intend—as has been suggested by the hon. Member who is a director both of a building society and a building company—to lend the same amount and to build the same amount during the course of that year as was lent and built in the previous year, it follows that the graph, which has been going up, must level out and, indeed, come down for the rest of the year. [Laughter.] That is a simple matter of arithmetic to which hon. Members opposite have not turned their minds.
If the figures for the first quarter are well above the newly-posed target—and the hon. Member for Holland with Boston was the only one to pose a target; nobody on the Opposition Front Bench did—if we start with the first quarter above that target it follows inevitably that during the remaining three quarters, if the target is kept to, we shall go at a slower rate than we went in the first quarter.
The situation with which we have to deal is not the anxiety that exists at the moment, but the possible anxiety for the future. What we must ask ourselves, therefore, is what has caused the present situation, in terms both of the falling off in funds and of high rates. The same answer applies to both. It is the lack of confidence in building societies. It is not the lack of deposits made with the building societies. The societies have continued to receive a very full share of their normal deposits.
What has happened is that withdrawals have increased out of all proportion.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am coming to that. Withdrawals have increased because the very large depositors with building societies have withdrawn their deposits, in search of higher rates which they can get elsewhere, particularly from the local authorities [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They are getting higher rates from the local authorities because funds which were previously available from abroad to lend to local authorities have gone back. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The reason for that, as every hon. Member—and particularly the Leader of the Opposition—knows, is that there was a crisis last year, caused, in particular, by the


Government of the day, who allowed this country to overspend £750 million.
When our total reserves are of the order of £900 million, those irresponsible Members sitting on the Front Bench opposite, knowing full well what was going on—I refer particularly to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—and determined to see, as he himself said, that what came first was winning the election and not the welfare of the country, caring nought for the £, for our balance of payments or anything else, went overspending at the rate of £3 million a day until, last year, our balance of payments suffered to the extent of £750 million, a sum which would have been greater had we not intervened.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I thought that I had better wait a moment for the hon. Gentleman to calm down a little. Is not my memory correct that when our side of the Committee put forward, at the General Election, programmes for roads, hospitals, education and all the rest of it, the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends put forward a programme which was far higher? If so, how can they accuse us of over-spending?

Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman's recollection is not all that good. What the right hon. Gentleman should recollect is that he told the whole of the Conservative Party that as from October or November, 1963, the only thing that mattered was winning the next election. What did not matter was protecting the £. What did not matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"]—was protecting the £ and our credit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] When a country is overspending to the extent of £750 million, with reserves of about £900 million, it is not surprising, is it, that when foreign countries find out the facts they have doubts about the stability of the economy of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—they have doubts about its ability to pay its debts? As everybody knows, it was that situation—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not shout across the Floor at each other, but will let the debate continue in a reasonably orderly manner.

Mr. Diamond: We on this side of the Committee have listened with care and consideration to every speech made throughout the debate, but, of course, right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not expect to get a reply and did not want the Committee to be reminded of the facts.
The facts are that as a result of the situation which we inherited, and which hon. Members opposite cannot laugh off, and about which no one in the country is in any doubt; the result of that and the consequences arising—the Bank Rate and the consequent increase in the level of rates—local authorities which found themselves short of funds borrowed in the market and borrowed at increasing rates; and people prepared to take advantage of those increased rates withdrew their funds from the building societies in order to do so——

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: Sir Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham) rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Diamond: That is a temporary situation, because we are taking all the necessary steps to restore the strength of the £—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members may laugh, but they will be glad to know that the £ is standing at the highest it has been for over a year—they can laugh that one off.
It is only when we restore the situation that it will then be possible for rates to become more normalised. It will then be possible for funds which have been withdrawn to find their way back to the building societies. That process has already started in the sense that local authorities are no longer offering anything like the rates they were offering a short time ago to further clients. They are offering about 1½ to 2 per cent. per annum less than they were a short time ago. This is an indication—we hope it is a sound indication—that funds are beginning to flow the other way. If that is so, there will no longer be the level of withdrawals from the building societies and the temporary difficulty we are all anxious about and wish to avoid.
In particular I wish to refer, because the right hon. Gentleman asked me to refer to it, to the further statement made by the Bank of England today. As the Committee knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that he would take


further measures to reinforce control over bank lending if it were proved necessary. The London Clearing Banks' monthly statement, published today, discloses a big increase in advances and my right hon. Friend has decided that a further measure of control is needed. The Government are determined that the expansion of the economy, which is evidenced in all the economic indicators, should proceed in a controlled manner.
The call for special deposits takes its place among the other measures which the Government are promoting and, in particular, will assist to realise the Government's prices and incomes policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stop."] Hon. Members opposite shout "Stop". Let me tell them what I believe "stop" really means. It really means stopping people going to work. That is what it really means, that is the essence of the thing—men at work. Men at work is substance, and all the economic arguments, by and large, are shadow. Men create when they are working and the present position of the unemployment rate in this country is about 1½ per cent. That is the answer to any hon. Gentleman who is alleging questions of stop.
We are concerned at this situation. We are anxious that it should not con-

tinue. The first thing, therefore, that we want to do is to repeat an appeal to right hon. and hon. Members opposite not to decry the building societies and exaggerate the situation and talk about a crisis when there is no crisis——

Mr. Heath: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman right at the end of his speech, but both the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have been trying this afternoon to create a bogy and a myth of lack of confidence in the building societies which has never existed on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Diamond: Of course it does not exist; of course it is "phoney". That is my whole point. It is a pure "phoney" in order to make political capital and to discredit the building societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I took down word for word what the right hon. Gentleman said and I do not detract from it. I am quoting him and his hon. Friends word for word. There is nothing wrong with what I have said, and I hope that he will co-operate with me in this endeavour.
Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £16,481,000 be granted for the said Service:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 284, Noes 296.

Division No. 97.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Dance, James


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bryan, Paul
Dean, Paul


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Astor, John
Buck, Antony
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Atkins, Humphrey
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Doughty, Charles


Baker, W. H. K.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Balniel, Lord
Buxton, R. C.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Campbell, Gordon
Eden, Sir John


Barlow, Sir John
Carlisle, Mark
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Batsford, Brian
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Channon, H. P. G.
Emery, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R.
Errington, Sir Eric


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Farr, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fell, Anthony


Berkeley, Humphry
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cole, Norman
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)


Bessell, Peter
Cooke, Robert
Foster, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bingham, R. M.
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Black, Sir Cyril
Cordle, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Blaker, Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Gammans, Lady


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan


Box, Donald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Crawley, Aidan
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Crosthwaice-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Glyn, Sir Richard


Brains, Bernard
Crowder, F. P.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Brewis, John
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Goodhart, Philip


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Curran, Charles
Goodhew, Victor


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Dalkelth, Earl of
Gower, Raymond




Grant, Anthony
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wlrral)
Ridsdale, Julian


Grant-Ferris, R.
Longbottom, Charles
Robson-Brown, Sir William


Gresham-Cooke, R.
Longden, Gilbert
Roots, William


Grieve, Percy
Loveys, Walter H.
Royle, Anthony


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lubbock, Eric
Russell, Sir Ronald


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sharpies, Richard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Shepherd, William


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McMaster, Stanley
Sinclair, Sir George


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Maginnis, John E.
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Sir John
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil
Speir, Sir Rupert


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Mathew, Robert
Stainton, Keith


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maude, Angus
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stodart, Anthony


Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steel, David


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Talbot, John E.


Hendry, Forbes
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Monro, Hector
Temple, John M.


Hirst, Geoffrey
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Morgan, W. G.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hooson, H. E.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Hopkins, Alan
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Walder, David (High Peak)


Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jennings, J. C.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walters, Dennis


Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Jopling, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Webster, David


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Peel, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, William


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Peyton, John
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kilfedder, James A.
Pitt. Dame Edith
Wise, A. R.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kirk, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lagden, Godfrey
Prior, J. M. L.
Woodnutt, Mark


Lambton, Viscount
Pym, Francis
Wylie, N. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Younger, Hn. George


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Mr. McLaren and Mr. MacArthur.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas





NOES


Abse, Leo
Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, Neil


Albu, Austen
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boardman, H.
Chapman, Donald


Aldritt, Walter
Boston, T. G.
Coleman, Donald


Allen, Scholefiold (Crewe)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Conlan, Bernard '


Armstrong, Ernest
Boyden, James
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Atkinson, Norman
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bradley, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Joel
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Cronin, John


Baxter, William
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Crosland, Anthony


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bence, Cyril
Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Buchanan, Richard
Darling, George


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Blnns, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bishop, E. S.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)







Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, R. E.


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, James(K'ston-on-Hull,W.)
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Hham,S.)
Randall, Harry


Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John


Dodds, Norman
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Redhead, Edward


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn


Donnelly, Desmond
Kenyon, Clifford
Reynolds, G. W.


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Richard, Ivor


Dunn, James A.
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edelman, Maurice
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, Rt.Hn. K. (St.Pancras.N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Miss Jannie (Cannock)
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ennals, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rowland, Christopher


Ensor, David
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Flitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCann, J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacColl, James
Silvcrman, Sydney (Nelson)


Floud, Bernard
MacDermot, Niall
Skeffington, Arthur


Foley, Maurice
Mclnnes, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Ford, Ben
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McLeavy, Frank
Snow, Julian


Freeson, Reginald
MacMillan, Malcolm
Solomons, Henry


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacPherson, Malcolm
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Garrow, A.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stones, William


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, Archie
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mapp, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Gregory, Arnold
Marsh, Richard
Swingler, Stephen


Grey, Charles
Mason, Roy
Symonds, J. B.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maxwell, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, Christopher
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Mellish, Robert
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hale, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Thornton, Ernest


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tinn, James


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tomney, Frank


Hannan, William
Molloy, William
Tuck Raphael


Harper, Joseph
Monslow, Walter
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Varley, Eric G.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hattersley, Roy
Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hazell, Bert
Murray, Albert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Neal, Harold
Wallace, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stan
Warbey, William


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Watkins, Tudor


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Norwood, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oakes, Gordon
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Holman, Percy
O'Malley, Brian
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Horner, John
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Or bach, Maurice
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Albert (Abertillery)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Will
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Howie, W.
Padley, Walter
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hoy, James
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wimerbottom, R. E.


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn, A.


Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Parker, John
Woof, Robert


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parkin, B. T.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jackson, Colin
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Zilliacus, K.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



Jeger, George (Goole)
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Popplewell, Ernest
Mr. George Rogers.

It being after Seven o'clock, the Chairman left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business).

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That tlic Bill be now read a Second time.

Sir Charles Taylor: On a point of order. As to the procedure in

debating the Bill, I assume that after the Second Reading the three Instructions on the Order Paper can be moved separately. I also assume that it will be possible to divide the House on each one in turn. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct. We must first deal with the matter of Second Reading. If the Bill is read a Second time we shall proceed in the manner described by the hon. Gentleman.
Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 180.

Division No. 98.]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Foley, Maurice
Kenyon, Clifford


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
Lawson, George


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bacon, Miss Alice
Freeson, Reginald
Ledger, Ron


Baxter, William
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Beaney, Alan
Garrett, W. E.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bence, Cyril
Garrow, A.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ginsburg, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Bessell, Peter
Gourlay, Harry
Loughlin, Charles


Binns, John
Gregory, Arnold
Lubbock, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Grey, Charles
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McBride, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McCann, J.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
McInnes, James


Boston, T. G.
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackie, John (Enfieltl, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hale, Leslie
MacMillan, Malcolm


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Manuel, Archie


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hannan, William
Mapp, Chares


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Harper, Joseph
Maxwell, Robert


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Robert


Buchanan, Richard
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hazeil, Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Cary, Sir Robert
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Molloy, William


Chapman, Donald
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Monslow, Walter


Coleman, Donald
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Conlan, Bernard
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Murray, Albert


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hooson, H. E.
Newens, Stan


Crawshaw, Richard
Horner, John
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Harry (wellingborough)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Howie, W.
Orbach, Maurice


Delargy, Hugh
Hoy, James
Orme, Stanley


Dell, Edmund
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Will


Doig, Peter
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Donnelly, Desmond
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Paget, R. T.


Driberg, Tom
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Palmer, Arthur


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)


Dunn, James A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Parker, John


Edelman, Maurice
Jackson, Colin
Parkin, B. T.


Ensor, David
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pavitt, Laurence


Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pentland, Norman


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Popplewell, Ernest


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(w.Ham,S.)
Probert, Arthur


Floud, Bernard
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John




Redhead, Edward
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Urwin, T. W.


Rees, Merlyn
Small, William
Varley, Eric G.


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Richard, Ivor
Snow, Julian
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Solomons, Henry
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Robinson, Rt. Hn.K.(St. Pancras, N.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wallace, George


Rogers, William (Stockton)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Warbey, William


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Stones, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley
Whitlock, William


Rowland, Christopher
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Swingier, Stephen
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Symonds, J. B.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hmpton.N.E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Zilliacus, K.


Silkin, John (Deptford)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)



Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Thornton, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Tinn, James
Mr. Rose.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Gurden, Harold
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Astor, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Awdry, Daniel
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Baker, W. H. K.
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Barlow, Sir John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Onslow, Cranley


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Berkeley, Humphry
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peel, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Percival, Ian


Bingham, R. M.
Hendry, Forbes
Peyton, John


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hiley, Joseph
Pitt, Dame Edith


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hopkins, Alan
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buck, Antony
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Burden, F, A.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Roots, William


Buxton, R. C.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Campbell, Gordon
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinsteead)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Speir, Sir Rupert


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Stainton, Keith


Corfield, F. V.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Costain, A. P.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthone)
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Crawley, Aidan
Kilfedder, James A.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kirk, Peter
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Curran, Charles
Lagden, Godfrey
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Dance, James
Lambton, Viscount
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longbottom, Charles
Walder, David (High Peak)


Doughty, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Walters, Dennis


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ward, Dame Irene


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Webster, David


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Whitelaw, William


Emery, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maitland, Sir John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Wise, A. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Mathew, Robert
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Mawby, Ray
Wylie, N. R.


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Younger, Hn. George


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Miscampbell, Norman
Sir Charles Taylor and


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Mitchell, David
Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport.


Glover, Sir Douglas

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part II of the Bill.
Part II deals with what the rubric to Clause 5 calls the "Acquisition of land for development," but that Clause and the other Clauses of Part II go a good deal further. I should like, first, to refer very briefly to the five Clauses in Part II and then deal with them in more detail. Clause 5 deals with acquisition by compulsory purchase, subject to confirmation by the Minister, for the purposes set out. There is precedent in other Measures for Clause 5, but I submit that the Manchester Corporation has no special case for this Clause.
Clause 6 deals with the acquisition of land for improving the appearance of derelict, neglected or unsightly land, and I will merely say of it that the general law making provision for this to be done was passed by this House as recently as 1963 in the Local Authorities (Land) Act. That Act gives local authorities quite sufficient power, and there seems to be no justification for Manchester Corporation to ask for a slight alteration in the general law for its own purpose.
Ancillary to Clause 5 are Clauses 7 and 8. Clause 7 gives to the corporation power to lend to enable purchase of, or to enable a person to build upon, land. Clause 8 refers to the corporation's power to lend or grant money for building, extending or improving an industrial building.
Clause 9 is wholly unprecedented. It is entitled, rather innocently, "Agreements with developers". It sets out the conditions which may be inserted in an agreement between the corporation and the developer and the consequences that may follow from such an agreement. As the Clause stands, both the original grant of town planning permission and the hearing of an appeal to the Minister from a refusal of town planning permission could be dependent upon the developer entering into such an agreement. It looks rather like a sort of legalised blackmail concerning the granting of town planning permission. Those are the Clauses with which we are concerned and, having briefly referred to them, perhaps I may now deal with them in more detail.
Under Clause 5 there are stated the purposes for which the corporation may,

by means of an order which must be submitted to the Minister and confirmed by the Minister, purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of building or carrying out works on that land
for the benefit or improvement of the city.
That is one puppose which is set out in the Clause. But the purposes go much further than that of purchasing land and building on it for the benefit and improvement of the city. The second purpose, under paragraph (b) is:
facilitating the provision of premises for occupation by any undertaking carried on or to be carried on there or for otherwise meeting the requirements of such undertaking.
It seems that the corporation is seeking power to acquire land for the purposes of a private undertaking, perhaps an undertaking subsidised and supported by the corporation. Subsection (3) says:
In this section the expression 'undertaking' includes any trade or business, or any other activity providing employment.
This is a very wide Clause. There are five precedents for it in previous private Bills. The first was in a Bill for Jarrow in 1939. I do not think Manchester Corporation would claim that Manchester is in the same state in 1965 as Jarrow was in 1939. Undoubtedly. at that time, such a Clause was necessary to attract industry to the Jarrow area in order to provide employment there. The Clause did not occur again in Private Bills until 1960, when Lancashire County Council sought to include it in the Lancashire County Council Bill of that year. The case made by Lancashire was that there were areas in the county where it was necessary to attract industry so as to provide employment for a percentage of unemployed higher than in the rest of the country.
The same applied to three following Bills, Durham County Council Bill, 1963, West Riding County Council Bill, 1964, and Cumberland County Council Bill, 1964. In connection with each of these county council Bills there was the justification of need to attract industry by reason of unemployment in the area of the county. In three out of four of those cases since 1960 the time in which the powers under this Clause could be exercised was limited to a period of five years. That limit does not appear in the Manchester Corporation Bill. I do


not believe that this is genuinely required by Manchester Corporation on the grounds on which the Clause has been justified previously for Private Bills, to provide employment where there is a attract industry to the area in order to high rate of unemployment.
I think that this Clause is required by Manchester solely for city centre development. For that reason I ask the House to instruct the Committee to reject the Clause. If there is a genuine case and Manchester Corporation needs land or buildings for this purpose there are two methods by which it can take exactly this step under the general law. It can go through the process of designating the land for compulsory purchase and holding a normal public inquiry. Why does Manchester Corporation want to avoid a public inquiry which every other corporation would have to go through if it required land for this purpose? Is it afraid in some way of bringing this matter before the public at an inquiry?
Secondly, the corporation could ask the Board of Trade to act under Section 2 of the Local Employment Act, 1960. The Board of Trade can take exactly these steps to acquire land for the corporation to support undertakings which will attract employment to the area. So there are two ways under the general law by which Manchester Corporation can carry out what it wants to do under this Clause and there is no special case why it should have this Clause. One can see how this Clause might operate by promoting subsidised competition for some favoured undertaking if one refers to the following Clauses, especially Clauses 7 and 8. Those Clauses give the corporation power to lend money and Clause 8 gives power to make grants for the purpose of development by other undertakings.
By Clause 8:
the Corporation may. if requested so to do by any person—

(i) who is the owner or intended owner or lessee of any land in the city; or
(ii)who has purchased or intends to purchase … any land …"

may lend or grant money
for the provision or improvement of services or facilities on which any trade or business carried on or intended to be carried on in such building.

This is a power given to the corporation to support business undertakings by grants not necessarily for building, but to provide services in connection with that business.
I do not think that I need refer to Clauses 7 and 8 again. They are ancillary to purposes which to me are objectionable in Clause 5. But I must couple with Clause 5 a subsection of Clause 9, namely, subsection (3) whereby
The Corporation may take or acquire shares or other securities in any company incorporated in the United Kingdom with which an agreement is entered into under this section.
The corporation might acquire the shares in some private undertaking and buy land for that undertaking, erect buildings for it, provide the services for it and run any business it chooses.
This would place Manchester in the position of being able to build anything it chose, to trade in anything it chose, to indulge in take-overs and practise monopolies. The purely logical reading of the Bill gives Manchester all those powers.
In addition, Clause 9 is entirely novel. Such a Clause has never been seen before in any Private Bill. So far as I know, no promoter of a Private Bill has endeavoured to obtain from Parliament the powers which Manchester Corporation seeks to obtain by this Clause.
From a statement issued by Manchester Corporation, I understand that it is prepared to remove certain subsections and paragraphs of Clause 9. It is prepared to remove paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and also to remove subsection (4). I must, however, refer to these because they show the intention of the Clause as originally drawn, an intention which I submit still remains in the Clause even when those paragraphs and the subsection have been removed. In Clause 9(1) it is said:
The Corporation and any person having an estate or interest in any land within the city may enter into an agreement which may provide for …
Then there are set out a number of paragraphs, of which the first says:
granting permission to carry out development of that land or of that land and other land within the city;
This is obviously intended to be an agreement whereby there will be a contract, as it were, between the corporation


and a developer who applies for town planning permission as to the terms on which the corporation will grant that permission. Without paragraph (a) it would be open to the corporation to say, "We will not grant you town planning permission, unless you enter into this agreement containing the provisions of the rest of Clause 9".
The Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, lays down clearly the conditions upon which town planning permission can be granted. It cannot be made subject to any other conditions than those provided in Sections 17 and 18 of that Act. What the corporation was here trying to do was to choose its own conditions, in disregard of the general town planning law. If Clause 9 meant anything at all, it meant that Manchester wanted to impose conditions which are not within the law, not within Sections 17 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962.
It may be said that this agreement provided by Clause 9 is intended to be only voluntary. If a developer liked to enter into an agreement with the corporation, he could do so. If he did not want to, he need not do so. If the corporation refused him town planning permission, he could appeal to the Minister. But then, as the Clause stood before this offer to remove subsection (4), had the applicant appealed to the Minister he would have been faced with subsection (4):
Where an appeal is brought under section 23 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, the Minister may before allowing or dismissing the appeal or revising or varying any part of the decision require the applicant to enter into an agreement with the Corporation.
So the corporation, as it first drew Clause 9, was endeavouring to dictate to the Minister what he should do on an appeal from an applicant who had been refused planning permission by the Corporation. It was an impudent Clause to put before the House. Now that the Corporation has withdrawn, or intends to withdraw, subsection (4), it may look, on the face of it, to be a little better.
What is left of the Clause now? Before I look at the wording of the Clause again, let me remind the House of the general law about agreements between local authorities and developers. It is set out clearly in Section 37 of the Town aid Country Planning Act, 1962. This gives corporations a very wide power to

enter into agreements with developers. The Section says:
A local planning authority may, with the approval of the Minister, enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement; and any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions of a financial character) as appear to the local planning authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement.
One would think that that was wide enough for any corporation, including the Manchester Corporation. It gives the corporation power to enter into agreements containing almost anything relevant to development. But the important provision in Section 37 is that the local authority can do this only with the approval of the Minister. If it intends to enter into such an agreement, it is under the supervision of the Minister. It is that which the Manchester Corporation leaves out of Clause 9.
What is the corporation afraid of? Is it afraid that the Minister will not give approval to right, proper and reasonable agreements which it makes with developers? It seems so from the drafting of Clause 9, otherwise there is no purpose in it. The corporation can do all it needs under the general law.
When one looks at some of the express provisions which the corporation wishes to insert in its agreements with developers, one can see a reason for the Clause. One finds this sort of thing. Under paragraph (d) the agreement can include a provision.
that the estate or interest of that person"—
that is, the developer—
in that land shall not be conveyed or assigned except by way of mortgage or legal charge to any person unless the Corporation shall first have satisfied themselves that that person has or can command sufficient financial resources to carry out the development for which permission is granted and to implement all the provisions of the agreement".
What happens if the owner of the land dies? Are his personal representatives tied to an assignee or a purchaser nominated by the corporation? There is not in the Clause even a provision that the consent of the corporation or the approval of the corporation is not to be unreasonably withheld. There is no provision for an appeal. This


is dictation by the corporation as to the person to whom the owner of land shall sell the land.
Paragraph (e) provides that the agreement may contain provision for
the maintenance and cleansing of the public rights of way …
This is right outside ordinary town planning law and could not be imposed under the normal conditions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962.
Subsection (2) begins in this way:
An agreement entered into under the last preceding subsection may contain",
and it first sets out a provision that positive covenants shall be enforceable against successors in title. This is a complete change of the general law. It may be a good change, but this is a change in the general law to which the corporation is not individually entitled and it cannot show a case for it above any other local authority.
Then there may be a stipulation that if there is a
resolution of the council that the development … has not been completed by the time determined by the agreement … the Corporation may … estimate the cost of carrying out all the development … which has not been completed … and … declare that sum to be a legal charge
on the property. It is to be
a first charge on the estate",
no matter what other first mortgagee there may be. Then:
any person … may appeal to the tribunal".
However, having appealed to the tribunal and won his appeal, there is this:
but a decision of the tribunal shall not preclude the Corporation from making further declarations by resolution of the council if circumstances change.
The change in circumstances is to be entirely at the discretion of the corporation, with no appeal at all from it. An unfortunate developer, having a charge placed upon his property, appeals to the tribunal and wins his case, but the next day is told by the corporation that the circumstances are changed and that it will not obey the tribunal's decision.

Mr. L. M. Lever: He can appeal again.

Mr. Graham Page: Interminably, Again and again, I suppose?

Mr. Lever: Yes.

Mr. Graham Page: Under Clause 9(2,b)
the Corporation may … enter on the land and do the work in default and the expenses incurred by the Corporation shall be recoverable by them from the person in default or from the owner of the land.
Apparently the corporation can recover the costs of completing the work as well as place a charge on the property for the estimated cost of the work and do it twice over. The man can go on appealing again and again and pay twice for work which he has not completed.
This is the sort of provision which by this Clause Manchester Corporation wants to include in agreements which cannot possibly be described as voluntary agreements. Suppose that the developer goes before the corporation with an application for general planning permission and he is invited to enter into this so-called voluntary agreement and he declines to do so and he is then refused town planning permission. Everyone knows how long it takes him to appeal from that and get the Minister's final decision. Of course, there is pressure on him to enter into an agreement of this sort. This is not the sort of provision which should be brought before the House in a Private Bill. It is an entirely new Clause. It has no precedent. I originates in the minds of the Manchester Corporation and should not be approved by the House.
This is the final Clause of Part II. I have described Clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and I ask that the Committee be instructed to leave out the whole of Part II of the Bill.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I intend to confine my remarks entirely to Clauses 5 and 6 because I know that many of my hon. Friends are anxious to speak. Hon. Members who live in or represent constituencies in the Manchester conurbation will only be too well aware of the legacy of industrial squalor which the city corporation faces. They will know, moreover, that no amount of piecemeal development will create the wholesome and esthetically satisfying environment which should be the heritage of those who live and work in the industrial North. It is exactly the


scrappy piecemeal approach which we must discard in the Buchanan age where new concepts of planning and technical requirements demand a new approach to the whole question of land ownership.
We need planned comprehensive development, and the new powers sought by the Manchester Corporation must be at the corporation's disposal if we are to get on with the job. These powers are additional to those which are available under existing enactments. It is inevitable that the use of these additional powers will interfere with the vested interests of a few individuals, but the overriding need is to provide modern amenities in a modern city. We have to provide in the North an alternative magnet to the swollen South-East. This is more than ample justification for these very limited additional powers sought, particularly in Clauses 5 and 6. Some exception has been taken to Clause 5 on the ground that its effect would be to permit the corporation to engage in trade on the acquired land.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: On the need to revitalise these areas of Manchester, which I do not dispute for a moment, could the hon. Gentleman explain in a little more detail why the existing power for the designation of this area as one for comprehensive development is inadequate?

Mr. Rose: That is precisely what I was going to deal with. I want to deal first with some of the objections to the Clause, and I will deal with that point in the correct order.
Municipal trading has been regarded as one of the objectives here and this is anathema to those who always prefer private profits to go into the private purse rather than towards helping the ratepayer. This is something of a red herring, apart from the doctrinaire nature of the objection, because it must be emphasised strongly that this is not the object of the Clause.
Clause 5 seeks to empower the corporation to purchase land by agreement, or, with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, compulsorily, for the benefit, improvement and development of the city. The city has possessed the former power over the past 40 years but this Bill will give it compulsory powers to begin sound, much-needed

development and redevelopment projects. One of the problems frequently facing an authority like the Manchester Corporation is that large-scale private development of an approved kind is often held up because the developer cannot get the freehold of one or two small sites which may be a tiny proportion of the whole. It would be wasteful of time and effort if it had to turn to the only other course of action by designating the site as an area of comprehensive development and then purchase the land and lease it in a building agreement to a developer.
I would say in answer to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who has referred to this difficulty, that there is a right of petition against the Bill, and those who are responsible for Manchester's affairs are only too anxious to present their plans to a Select Committee to show why these powers are needed. The effect of voting against the relevant Clause would be that these powers would go out entirely. We ask that Manchester Corporation be entitled to bring its plans forward and to demonstrate why these powers are necessary. This is all we ask at this point.
The sort of projects envisaged by Manchester hardly come under the heading of municipal trading. They include such things as a new centre for the B.B.C., a new headquarters for the Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes, a new teaching centre and an imaginative proposal for a new arts and cultural centre in the city.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member will appreciate that this is an entirely new reason for the Clause. The five precedents which I quoted for the Clause were justified entirely on the need for industrial development to attract employment. This is entirely new and that is why I am objecting to it.

Mr. Rose: Manchester Corporation is only too anxious to demonstrate why this is necessary and by voting against the Clause hon. Members will be denying the corporation that facility. The hon. Member for Crosby forgets the real and difficult problems faced by the corporation. He forgets that this is a particularly difficult legacy which is confined to the industrial North. We need real powers. We need teeth. It is not merely a question of bringing in industry.
One of the problems of urban renewal in Manchester stems directly from a go-ahead programme of large-scale slum clearance in the centre of the city. It is desired to get on with these proposals and there are large numbers of small businessmen who will be forced to seek alternative accommodation in the city. The Bill offers one solution of that problem. The objectors, among whom I understand is the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, are in great danger of causing distress and hardship to a large number of small business men in the city because of their doctrinaire objection to the possibility of municipal trading. I, for one, would oppose any attempt to deprive these small businessmen, dispossessed by Manchester improvement schemes, of the opportunity to seek their legitimate livelihood within the city.
Many firms have already been displaced, and in plans up to 1971 it is estimated that there are 650 small industrial and warehousing firms which will be affected by slum clearance and other major projects. It is only just that these people who built up their businesses in the city should be accorded the right to remain in the city which gave them their prosperity and to which they have contributed and, I hope, will go on contributing. Clause 5 would be a very useful addition to the corporation's existing powers to meet these requirements. The hon. Member for Crosby has said that the Clause is unprecedented. The conditions which make the Clause a necessity may be different, but the Clause itself is not unprecedented. It follows Section 6 of the Durham County Council Act, 1963, and also the West Riding County Council (General Powers) Act, 1964.
I turn now to Clause 6. We are here concerned with very forward-looking and imaginative proposals to rescue Manchester from the squalid legacy of Victorian industrialism which the laissez-faire economics of some hon. Members opposite bequeathed to us. Those who have spent their lives in Manchester know what conditions are like in areas like Red Bank or the Valleys of the Irk and the Medlock. We know the twilight areas on the periphery of the city and the problems which are faced there, problems which, of course, are to be

found in many of our large cities. In my own constituency, I have the problem of a derelict site in Croft of Lily Lane which I hope that certain people will take note of. All these things have to be dealt with, and those hon. Members who have seen what the problems involve know that it is time that a concerted effort was made in cities like Manchester to improve their appearance and make them places of which we can be proud.
Manchester Corporation is planning a magnificent scheme for the improvement of the Irk Valley, where there are large tracts of derelict land and large tracts of land which is not derelict which have to be obtained by the corporation. The idea of this scheme is to create what have been called green fingers stretching out from the congested centre towards the suburbs, in other words, to create new linear parks. I look forward to the time when my constituents in Blackley, those who reside near Boggart Hole Cleugh or Heaton Park, will be able to walk from there to the centre of the city in pleasant green surroundings. If powers for this purpose are secured under Clause 6, it will one day be a real possibility.
I refer to Clause 6 in this context because the corporation must secure the necessary powers if these projects are one day to be a reality in our city. The problem is not so much one of the derelict land. The corporation can carry out work on derelict land which it owns. There is no great problem on derelict land owned by others because even there, by agreement, it can carry out work or it can even take over the land. The problem arises in relation to non-derelict land. If we are to have a comprehensive scheme, if the corporation is to have a situation in which it can deal with derelict, neglected or unsightly land coming within the scope of the existing powers, it is desirable also to incorporate in the same project areas of vacant land which are not themselves derelict, neglected or unsightly and which are, therefore, outside the powers of acquisition which at present exist.
The Irk Valley scheme, for example, would be entirely impossible without the powers sought for in the Bill. It is essential in this connection that both derelict
and non-derelict land should be treated together as one area for the purposes of improvement. I know that the corporation will be only too pleased to present facts, maps and plans to a Select Committee of the House. I hope that in this case, as in all the others in respect of which objections have been made, hon. Members opposite will not allow blind vested interest, lack of knowledge of the problems facing Manchester or doctrinaire stubbornness against the principle of municipal trading to stand in the way of the well-being of my constituents and the constituents of hon. Members on both sides who reside in or represent parts of Manchester and who want to see the improvement of our city so that we may all live in a healthier, happier, and more beautiful place.

8.4 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: I agree with the general sentiments which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). One of our great disabilities—this applies not only to Manchester but to all our industrial areas in the North—is that we have the oldest capital assets in the world and we must replace them. This is a task which, in its vast comprehension, faces no other industrialised nation. When I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), whose judgments and opinions on so many matters are much respected in the House, I felt how much I wished that I could imprison his great energies in this task of recreating "Buchananising", if anyone likes the word—a great capital city like Manchester. Those who may have seen or travelled through Manchester recently will know that it has become a wilderness of vacant land and cleared sites, that the fulfilment of slum clearance is almost on the point of completion. Here is a glittering golden opportunity to recreate in full our great capital city.
I am setting my sights high in this, almost on an idealistic plane, but I am convinced that we must approach all these problems now. I have to divorce myself from views which I once held and expressed in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred to our work years ago in regard to Jarrow, for example, when the mood dominating both

sides of the House was concentrated upon mass unemployment. Any expedient, either through a Private Bill or a Government Measure, which any hon. Member cared to put before the House of Commons which would add a little improvement in that situation of mass unemployment was accepted. But those problems, fortunately—they were not the good old days—no longer exist. Now we have a much bigger and much wider challenge to face.
I have had the privilege of representing part of Manchester and its immediate area in the House of Commons for the last 30 years. I have been very proud to do so. But, again and again, in going through that area, the question has occurred to me: how are we to re-create its capital assets for a modern society? Anyone who has thought about these things knows that a similar pattern exists not just in Manchester but in the North-East, in the surrounding areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and elsewhere. No matter where one turns, one sees this enormous out-dated capital asset which must be replaced. We can no longer procrastinate about it.
I was a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) divided the House on the Second Reading. He and his hon. Friends are old friends of mine, and I have participated in many votes with them. Why, having blessed nine-tenths of the Bill and having put upon the Order Paper three Instructions which we can debate, they should divide against the Second Reading of the Bill in toto, a Bill to which they had already given their blessing, I do not really understand.

Sir C. Taylor: This was after long weeks and months of negotiation. We made our position perfectly clear to the Parliamentary agents representing Manchester.

Sir R. Cary: I was unaware of that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I did not know that he had had negotiations of that kind. But I had hoped that the Second Reading would pass without a dissenting voice here. There are great problems now coming upon us. I assume—I hope that the House will forgive me for doing so—that, in regard to the implications of some of the matters in the Bill which


are the subject of contention, Manchester City Corporation would behave most honourably. By a sinister, difficult and perhaps spiteful authority in another part of the country, these powers could be misused, but I must assume that Manchester Corporation will discharge honourably any of the duties underlying the Clauses, particularly in Part II, which have been objected to—perhaps rightly so from its point of view—by Manchester Chamber of Commerce.
I hope that, confronted as we are with enormous challenges, we shall, in considering this Bill, divorce ourselves from past attitudes belonging more appropriately to 25 years ago, that we shall not read sinister implications in the Bill and that the House will examine it fairly and objectively. If there is any aspect of Part II which could be further refined, there will be opportunity to do so.
I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby should have sought examples in Jarrow and other places once stricken by unemployment. We are in a completely new and different situation. Unless we were able to look at this Bill in terms of a completely new situation in which we must rebuild the capital assets of our country and recreate our provisional capitals, I would be depressed for the future work of the House. I hope that, perhaps with further refinement, we shall, in spite of the Motions on the Order Paper, get this Bill for Manchester Corporation. I think that the House should know that the Bill has the blessing of all three parties in Manchester City Council.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Normally, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I are on common ground, as I have always known him to be a man who is balanced, understanding and appreciative of most earthly situations. I am sorry to tell him now that he has not put forward a reasoned case against this Bill, contrary to his usual practice, but has presented a case of spleen against Manchester Corporation, accusing it of wanting to do something on its own outside general legislation and of wanting to dictate right, left and centre simply for the sake of dictating.
I am grateful to my friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Carey) for the reasoned way in which he put the sorry position in which Manchester finds itself today in relation to redevelopment. That situation is transitional but these empty spaces in Manchester, may well affect not only Manchester itself but the position of our country in the eyes of the world.
The hon. Member for salubrious Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) has been to Manchester frequently because he likes doing trade there. I do not know how often the hon. Member for Crosby has been there but I think that every dispassionate person who comes to our City, with its great and famous traditions not only in trade but also in great moral messages and leadership, will agree that it is a matter of the greatest consequence that Manchester should be rebuilt according to modern requirements and be the shop window not only for Manchester and the North-West but for Britain and the Commonwealth as well.
Manchester attracts millions of people every year to do business, much of it in exports which are so important. But what kind of a picture do foreigners see? They find it somewhat flat because of the age of the buildings and because, apparently, nothing is or can be done swiftly under existing legislation in order to expedite the rebuilding of the City of which we are so very proud.
Manchester is a very progressive city. It has a progressive corporation. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Withington pointed out that the Bill has the unanimous approval of the Conservative, Liberal and Labour Parties in Manchester. This is not a proposition which has merely been passed on the nod. All the implications of the Bill were carefully examined by the corporation's general parliamentary committee, of which I have the honour to be a member and on which all three parties are represented. The committee was unanimous in support of the Bill.
Then the Bill had to go before the City Council. It could not be passed by a majority of those present at the time. It had to be passed by a majority of the full Council. The Council passed it unanimously after considering it.

Sir C. Taylor: The Bill becomes an Act of Parliament of this House.

Mr. Lever: I cannot agree to that. I do not think that you have any knowledge of procedure on this matter. The Bill has received its Second Reading and your efforts to prevent it were without success, which is all I wish you in Future. After we have defeated your attempts to put the brakes on—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. I am doing nothing to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Lever: I want to acquit you wholeheartedly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of any suggestion of your putting the brakes on the Bill. I am speaking about the supporters—they are, I hope, temporary—of the Instructions on the Order Paper.

Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely we are debating the Instructions, not the Bill as a whole. Would it not be in order for the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the Instructions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) was dealing with Part If of the Bill.

Mr. Lever: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was. Even when these Instructions have been defeated, the Bill does not then become law.

Sir C. Taylor: No. The hon. Member did not allow me to finish.

Mr. Lever: Just a minute. You will have your chance when you catch Mr. Deputy-Speaker's eye. I have it now and it is my opportunity to speak for Manchester. The hon. Gentleman may speak for Eastbourne.
The procedure is that, even when these Instructions are defeated, the Bill must go before a Select Committee of this House. That Committee must be satisfied not by mere speeches but by evidence in support of all the Clauses. It will not be impressed merely by speeches and airy nothings. Every Clause must be proved to that Select Committee before the Bill can become the law of the land.
It is not correct to say that if these Motions are defeated tonight the Bill will

automatically become law. All we are asking is that we should be allowed to prove our case and to bring evidence before the Select Committee, but apparently your Motions are intent on preventing us and on stifling us so that we cannot produce the necessary evidence. We from Manchester are prepared to bring evidence, chapter and verse, in support of every Clause to the satisfaction of the Select Committee. If the Select Committee is not satisfied that Manchester has made out its case, it will delete such Clauses as it thinks fit, but you do not want to let us—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not continue to say "You". I am doing nothing about the Bill.

Mr. Lever: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should have said that the hon. Member for Eastbourne and the hon. Member for Crosby do not want to let us, but I hope that their colleagues will not agree with them. What is wrong with the Bill going to a Select Committee? I should have thought that it was the British right to be heard, certainly for a corporation anxious to rebuild its city.
What is wrong with Clause 9? This is not a matter of dictation or compulsion. All the Clause does is to empower the corporation to encourage developers to rebuild the city more speedily in the interests not only of Manchester and Lancashire but Britain, including Eastbourne and Crosby. Quite clearly, what we are doing is to serve the national interest by making Manchester attractive to the world, as we would like it to be and as would be in accordance with its great traditions for commerce and industry.

Mr. Graham Page: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of redeveloping Manchester as a beautiful city, as he wants it to be redeveloped, but he has not addressed his mind to why Manchester cannot do it under the existing general law, and particularly, in connection with Clause 9, why Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, is not sufficient for it to be done in Manchester as it is being done in Liverpool.

Mr. Lever: I will deal with those matters, but I wanted first to address the


House on the general attitude towards the Bill.
It will encourage agreements with private developers. There is no reason why a voluntary agreement between the corporation and a private developer should not be reached, and I should have thought that this opportunity for the extension of private enterprise would have found a welcome spot in the hearts of some hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Crosby said that the Bill would damage the general law of town and country planning, but it would not do so. If an application for development were made, Manchester would have no right to say, "We will give you general planning permission on condition that you conform to this, that and the other". That would be ultra vires and hon. Gentlemen know it.
The case made out by the hon. Member for Crosby is that this has never been done before. But this is not the first time that Manchester has been the pioneer in terms of human betterment. The fact that it has never been done before does not mean that it should not be done now if it is in the interests of the community. The argument of hon. Members opposite is that because it has not been done before, Manchester cannot take the lead. The hon. Member for Crosby let the cat out of the bag, because he said, "Liverpool can do it, so why cannot Manchester?" If Crosby were moved nearer Manchester, the hon. Gentleman would probably support the Bill.
This is an attempt to rebuild a famous city by means of agreements, voluntarily made and without prejudice to the general law on town and country planning. If developers want to reach agreements with the corporation, why should they not do so? The agreements say that there should be an agreed order in which the development should be carried out. What is wrong with that? The time by which the development is to be completed is to be determined. We cannot wait all our lives for some developer to complete a project.
The agreements say that land shall not be conveyed or assigned except by way of mortgage or legal charge unless the corporation is first satisfied that the person can command sufficient financial resources. Over the years how many

projects have lain derelict simply because those who embarked on them were not able to complete their contracts, to the detriment of the community and the defacement of our cities and towns?
What is wrong with the corporation saying that it is prepared to dedicate, even at its own cost, public rights of way over any parts in which development takes place? The agreements say that arrangements are to be made for the provision, maintenance and use of facilities for the parking of vehicles in connection with development. I should have thought that that was most desirable. The hon. Member for Crosby would want all parking sites in all our redeveloped cities to be excluded from the application——

Mr. Graham Page: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I do not object to that because it is in the general law. The corporation has the right to make conditions about parking spaces under the general law. It does not need to make provision for it in a Private Bill. What I object to are paragraphs (d) and (e).

Mr. Lever: I cannot see, with my long experience of Manchester and the law and knowledge of the conditions in which people are operating in the City, why there can be any objection to this proposal, whether it is in the general law or not. If it is included in the Bill and is also in the general law, instead of abrogating the general law it confirms it. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be very pleased about that.
Subsection (2,a) says:
An agreement entered into under the last preceding subsection may contain—(i) positive and negative covenants … 
These can be registered as local land charges. The hon. Member for Crosby appreciates that this is normal legitimate conveyancing practice in certain similar circumstances. Subsection (2,a)(ii) says that in the event of
a stipulation that in the event of the Corporation declaring by resolution of the council that the development or a part of the development has not been completed by the time determined by the agreement
it will do something about it. A local authority would be guilty of a very grave dereliction of duty if an agreement was entered into for the development of an area and nothing was done about it for


months. It would be failing in its duty it it did not take cognisance of the situation with a view to action being taken.
The Bill then deals with the situation if a developer has any difficulty or does not agree with the action of the corporation. The hon. Member for Crosby gave the impression that there could be no right of appeal. He gave only part of the story until I intervened with regard to the Tribunal. A developer can appeal to the Lands Tribunal. After the matter has been to the Lands Tribunal and the corporation finds that the conditions have been varied, it can alter the terms and the developer can appeal against those terms. This is nothing new. If a person applies for town planning permission under the general law and his application is turned down, he can vary his application.
I want to give others the opportunity of speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those who say Hear, hear "show that their zeal for Manchester is no less great than mine, and I feel that it should be given full expression, because the future of Manchester and the appearance of our great city depends so much on this Measure which will have an effect, not only on the lives of the people of Manchester but on the rest of the people of this country.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I should like to make a short statement. I have no interest in or concern with any of the three Instructions on the Order Paper. Nor do I intend to vote if a vote is taken. But I must tell the House that by accident I voted on the Second Reading, which took place a short time ago. I did not realise at the time what the Division was on. I know that that was my own fault. After I went through the Lobby, I heard that it was a vote on the Second Reading of the Bill. I thought that the two Divisions which took place were connected.
I apologise to the House, because I have no interest in this matter at all. I do not wish to take sides on the Bill. Since I understand that I might well be placed on the Committee, I should tell the House that my vote on Second Reading was an accident. I apologise to hon. Members for having gone through the Lobby. if it were within my power to cancel the vote, I should certainly do so.

8.34 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I hope that the House will allow me to intervene at this stage for a few moments and to state the case as the Government see it.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) is to be admired for his frankness and honesty in saying that he did not know what he was doing when he went through the Lobby. It is not the first time that that has happened. It happens to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
This is a Private Bill, containing 58 Clauses. I think that we all agree that the majority of them are not in dispute. If the Bill is enacted, these uncontested Clauses will confer on the Manchester Corporation powers which are useful though of relatively minor importance. Only a few Clauses in the Bill have provoked differences of opinion.
If hon. Members are apprehensive about provisions in a Private Bill, they have every right to raise the matter in the House. I concede that at once to all those who have spoken. It is, however, the practice of the House to allow Private Bills to go to a Select Committee, where the arguments for and against the disputed Clauses can be heard in detail. A Committee may spend several days listening to detailed arguments, evidence and witnesses. My right hon. Friend does not think it right that we should attempt to settle these detailed local issues on the Floor of the House.
The Manchester Corporation should be given the opportunity to state its case to the Committee on the Bill and the Committee should be free to arrive at its own decisions after hearing the arguments put forward by the corporation and the objectors who have petitioned against the Bill.
I should like to say a little about the detailed matters in the Bill. As has been said, there are precedents in other local Acts of Parliament for most of the Clauses in Part II. The powers in Clause 5, for example, are already available to the County Councils of Lancashire, Durham, Cumberland and the West Riding. The Committee on the Bill may well decide that Manchester does or does not need these powers. I


do not know what the Committee will decide, but it should be free as a Committee to reach its conclusions after hearing the evidence. It would be wrong for the House to give the Committee a ready-made decision by means of the Instruction which we are discussing.
In Part II of the Bill, the only Clause for which there is no precedent is Clause 9. In the Bill as deposited, the Clause would have permitted the corporation to make agreements tied to the system of planning control. It is not the corporation's intention, I understand, to try to force into an agreement people who apply for planning permission. The corporation is, therefore, prepared to amend the Clause so that there is no link with the machinery of planning control. As amended, the Clause would permit the corporation to enter into agreements with developers, as a matter of simple contract betwen the two parties, to secure that when land is to be developed under a comprehensive planning permission, the whole development and not just parts of it will be carried out.

Sir Douglas Glover: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the very fact that Manchester Corporation says that it will amend the Clause justifies those who oppose it in its present form.

Mr. Mellish: I said earlier that it is the right of hon. Members to debate any Bill which comes before the House and, if they have objections, to say what they are. The day that we take that right away will be the day when we have destroyed what this House is all about.
What I am asking is that Manchester Corporation—it is not for me to praise the corporation; it has some wonderful stalwarts here who have done that—should have every right to put its case before the appropriate Committee and for those who object to do the same.

Mr. Graham Page: This assurance which the hon. Gentleman has given about amendment of the Clause is the first we have heard of it. We have had three hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of Manchester Corporation, but they have made no mention of this. To what extent can we take this as an assurance that these Amendments will be submitted to the Committee?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member will know enough about Government practice to recognise that I am aided and abetted by first-class civil servants and a Department who have obviously informed me of the facts. If they have not properly informed me, there will be trouble with the civil servants concerned. I assure the hon. Member that that is what we now understand. It is as a result of consultation with the corporation. There can be no doubt, therefore, that, having said it in the way I have, this will be done.
It is not for my right hon. Friend to defend or justify the Clauses in the Bill. That is for the corporation to do before the Select Committee. We honestly feel that there is nothing outrageous here for which Manchester is asking. I beg the House to give the corporation the opportunity to put its case to the Committee. If there is a vote, as there may well be, I ask the House to vote against the Instruction.

8.40 p.m.

Sir Charles Taylor: I rise to speak for only two minutes because I do not wish to detain the House for very long, but I feel that in answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever)—

Mr. L. M. Lever: Perhaps I might explain to the hon. Gentleman that I am both right and honourable, but not right honourable.

Sir C. Taylor: Because of a previous appointment the hon. Gentleman was designated right honourable, and I thought that it lasted for a lifetime. If I am wrong, I am sorry that it does not.
It is the duty of every Member of the House to look at these corporation Bills. I expected to be thanked by the hon. Member for Ardwick for raising this matter, because it gave him a chance to make the wonderful speech that he did in support of his constituency. Instead of lambasting me as he did, I should have thought that he would have thanked me.
Some of my hon. Friends and I study these corporation Bills very carefully. The object of the exercise is to ensure that there is nothing objectionable to the House in enabling corporations to take unto themselves powers which they should not take without the permission of Parliament. I think that in raising this issue


we have done a service to the House and to Parliament, and, even though I am the Member for Eastbourne, I make no apology for raising this matter of the Manchester Corporation Bill.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Mr. L. M. Lever rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
Question put and negatived.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 48 of the Bill.
This Clause has nothing to do with the beauty of Manchester, but I think the House will agree—and in fact the Minister has made it clear that he considers this to be so—that all Private Bills presented to the House should be scrutinised very closely. Some of my hon. Friends and I spend a great deal of time vetting Bills presented to the House with the intention of bringing what we consider to be objectionable Clauses to the notice of the sponsors of the Measure, and frequently they amend them without the matter having to be raised on the Floor of the House.

Mr. J. T. Price: Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton) rose—

Mr. Burden: I cannot give way at this stage. I shall do so later.
We go to a great deal of trouble to study these Bills. These Bills which come before the House become Acts of Parliament, and hon. Members should recognise that it is their duty to study these Measures as carefully as they study public business. I was rather surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) apologise for intervening and say that he was not concerned with the Bill. We are all concerned with any legislation—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The lion. Member is getting very far from the Instruction which he is moving.

Mr. Burden: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I give way to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price).

Mr. J. T. Price: I am rather puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman has said. He takes the view that all hon. Members should have an opportunity of examining Bills of this character, but the action taken by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in voting against the Second Reading of the Bill, as they did a short time ago, could have prevented—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the Second Reading on an intervention.

Mr. Burden: Under Clause 48 the corporation
may enter into and carry into effect agreements with any manufacturer or supplier of smokeless fuel or liquid fuel for the manufacture or supply of such quantity or quantities as may from time to time be required or be likely to be required and may guarantee, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be agreed, the payment for, or sale of, any smokeless fuel or liquid fuel to which the agreement relates.
(3) Any solid smokeless fuel or liquid fuel which is manufactured or supplied in pursuance of an agreement under subsection (2) of this section may be sold by the Corporation to any local authority or to any person.
(4) The Corporation and any local authority may enter into an agreement under subsection (2) of this section for the sale and purchase of any solid smokeless fuel or liquid fuel.
In subsection (1,b), "smokeless fuel" means,
any fuel for the time being declared by regulations of the Minister of Power under the Clean Air Act, 1956, to be an authorised fuel for the purpose of that Act.
This would give the corporation tremendous powers, for which there is no precedent. The corporation claims, as a reason for the introduction of the Clause—I quote from its declaration—that
It is apprehended that the demand for smokeless fuel for use in normal or improved open grates will exceed the supply and the Corporation are anxious to encourage manufacturers, by giving them a guarantee that there will be a market, to increase their plant capacity so as to increase the supplies. By the clause the Corporation seek power to make agreements with a manufacturer or supplier of smokeless fuel or liquid for these purposes. It is also proposed by the clause to empower the Corporation and any other local authority to make agreements for the sale and purchase of smokeless fuel which may be the subject of an agreement or guarantee with a manufacturer.
In the first sentence of that declaration the corporation refers to a possible shortage of smokeless fuel for improved


open grates. This is the only solid fuel in respect of which it says specifically that there is likely to be a shortage.
If this is the case, why is it that the corporation asks for these powers to be extended to liquid fuels? It says that there is likely to be a shortage of some solid fuels, and it goes on to say that it is anxious to encourage manufacturers by giving them a guarantee that there will be a market. This seems an extraordinary argument. In the first place, the corporation says that there is likely to be a shortage of this fuel and then says that in order that there shall be no shortage of the fuel it must give this undertaking. Smokeless zones are being extended throughout the country, by order of the Government, and there is bound to be an increasing demand for these fuels.
Let us deal first with the position concerting liquid fuels, in respect of which the corporation asks for powers to enter into agreements with manufacturers and purveyors. I do not think that any hon. Member could put forward any argument, or any facts, to show that there was any shortage of liquid fuel anywhere is this country.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: Manchester is at the moment experiencing a serious shortage of solid smokeless fuel. Can the hon. Member guarantee that in future there will he no shortage of liquid fuel?

Mr. Burden: If the hon. Member will contain himself for a moment, he will find that I am coming to the question of smokeless solid fuel. He asks whether anyone can give a guarantee that there will be no shortage of liquid fuel in future, although there is none now. In fact there is no shortage at present, but the argument on which the Manchester Corporation is, presumably, asking for the insertion of Clause 48 in the Bill, is because of an imaginary shortage.
This is a highly specialised trade, both wholesale and retail, involving the use of tankers, bulk storage facilities and filling stations and there is a door-to-door delivery on a large scale. The hon. Member asks whether one could give any undertaking that there would be no shortage of liquid fuel in future. I say that this is extremely unlikely, but in any case, does the hon. Member say seriously

that the Manchester Corporation—in case there should be a shortage at some stage in the future—put into effect immediately all the paraphernalia connected with the distribution of liquid fuel in Manchester? Should the corporation construct large underground storage tanks, purchase bulk storage vehicles and create filling stations and an organisation and hold it at tremendous cost in case, at some time in the future, there should be a shortage of liquid fuel?

Mr. Conlan: Mr. Conlan rose—

Mr. Burden: I am sorry, I cannot give way—

Mr. Conlan: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question.

Mr. Burden: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman. He should look into the matter and ask the Manchester Corporation—if he lives in Manchester to provide him and the people of Manchester with an idea of the capital cost involved and the charge on the rates which would result.
There is also the fact that the people engaged in this trade—

Mr. Conlan: The hon. Member asked me a question: I think I should have the right to reply.

Mr. Burden: I am sorry, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he asks the Manchester Corporation to provide him with the information—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is a member."] The distribution of liquid fuel is a highly technical matter and the men engaged in this business have built up the "know-how" over many years. They have established an efficient and flexible delivery service, not only for Manchester but throughout the whole country, which is fully satisfactory to the public. I doubt whether any person in Manchester who requires liquid fuel for any purpose has expressed dissatisfaction with the service he obtains. I am certain that if the Manchester Corporation was to undertake the distribution of liquid fuels with any chance of success—

Sir R. Cary: It would not.

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend says that it would not, and if it would not why should it put this into the Bill? This is the whole point, and this is the point


which I am making. It would involve Manchester—

Mr. Rose: When the hon. Member refers to liquid fuel, is he referring to that with a high or a low sulphur content?

Mr. Burden: This is not specified in the Bill. I am merely making the point that this is a matter for Manchester Corporation. This is what we are discussing. If they had wished to specify that, they should have specified it in the Bill and we should have discussed it accordingly.

Mr. Rose: Mr. Rose rose—

Mr. Burden: I cannot give way to the hon. Member again.
It is also the ratepayer's money which is involved in this—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear". If that is the case, the ratepayers of Manchester are entitled, before they commit themselves to any such vast expenditure, to know what the capital expenditure is likely to be, what benefits they are likely to derive, and how the capital expenditure involved would be charged on the rates. I would suggest that that part of Clause 48 which deals with liquid fuels is not justified. There is certainly no shortage and it would be reasonable to expect that there is likely to be no shortage in the future.
I should now like to turn to the question of solid fuels. The corporation wants the same powers to make arrangements and to enter into contracts with makers of solid fuels. They declare in the Bill that authorised solid fuels will be indicated from time to time by order made by the Ministry of Power. There has been one Statutory Instrument, No. 2023, which came into operation on 31st December, 1956 and which laid down the range of solid fuels which were available. The Bill is based on those solid fuels. But the Corporation's case apparently rests on the statement that demand for smokeless fuel for use in normal or improved open grates will exceed the supply.
Suppose that we accept that, for the sake of argument. Through these powers which Manchester Corporation wants to obtain it would get more than its fair share of a commodity which is in short supply. This can be the only

reason. If Manchester Corporation is saying that this smokeless solid fuel is in short supply and that it will therefore enter into an agreement in order to obtain better supplies for Manchester, it would, by this very act, be creating a corner in solid fuel for Manchester and thus denying to many other areas their fair share of a scarce commodity.
This, I would submit, is something to which even hon. Gentlemen opposite would object strongly, particularly if their own constituencies were found to be short of solid fuel because the Coal Board or some other supplier had made an agreement to supply Manchester with more than its fair share of the scarce commodity. If it will not give the corporation more than its fair share and it would not get any more from the manufacturers by having this arrangement, why does it need this Clause? If that happened it would merely exaggerate the shortage in other towns.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for allowing an hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency to intervene. Does he agree that in the preparation of solid fuels, of which there is a scarcity, it would be useful if a market could be guaranteed to any manufacturer who was prepared to expand his productive capacity?

Mr. Burden: I have been in business all my working life and have found that when manufacturers find a shortage in any market they set about trying to increase their output in the quickest possible way.

Mr. Bence: Mr. Bence rose—

Mr. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman will control his impatience I will try to show him precisely what is taking place now.
As with liquid fuels, so with solid fuels. Experts have set up the whole machinery of distribution and it has been found, when the fuel has been available, that the media of distribution have worked satisfactorily. Suppose Manchester Corporation stated, "We are going to distribute". Have the hon. Members who represent Manchester considered that that would involve Manchester Corporation in considerable cost?

Sir R. Cary: Only through the factors.

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend says that that would happen only through the factors but, with respect, that is not true because in a statement which Manchester Corporation issued in the last few days it was stated that it was prepared to enter into agreements with local distributors. Those were exactly the terms the corporation offered, for it stated:
…before selling direct to the public any smokeless fuel acquired by them under the clause to offer it first to the trade for distribution and sale at a price which would have regard both to the cost to the Corporation and the market prices of the fuel obtaining at that time".
Thus, there is no question at all of it being mandatory on Manchester Corporation to sell only through the normal distributors. This would give it power to set up its own selling organisation.

Sir C. Taylor: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Clause 48(3), which states:
Any solid smokeless fuel or liquid fuel which is manufactured or supplied in pursuance of an agreement under subsection (2) of this section may be sold by the Corporation to any local authority or to any person.

Mr. Burden: It is surprising to find that my hon. Friend, who represents a Manchester constituency, is quite ignorant of the corporation's intentions in this regard.

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Burden: It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite saying "rubbish" because it is laid down in the Bill that the Corporation will have these powers. If that is not so, how do hon. Gentlemen opposite explain why provision for that is made in the Bill? I have described what might happen and if the powers in the Bill are exercised the Corporation will have the wherewithal to take those steps.
It should be remembered that this would mean the establishment of very large dumps and the creation of an expensive selling organisation with all the attendant expenses, including costly vehicles and so on. Here again, the people of Manchester might find themselves involved in considerable cost, with increased rates, for no useful purpose.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we accept that if there were an acute shortage the corporation would be justi-

fied in doing this. Is a shortage likely? It has been stated by one or two hon. Members opposite, who obviously have not looked at the subject very closely, that there will certainly be an acute shortage. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that some of the information now to hand about the obtainability of smokeless fuels was not available when the Bill was drafted. If it had been, I hold that Clause 48 would never have been inserted in the Bill at all.
All the evidence shows, however, that the shortage was for solid fuels for use in open grates. There was a shortage there, and to a certain extent there still is, but this is the only shortage, and the Manchester Corporation is not asking for powers to deal with this fuel only but goes far beyond that. The fact remains that this is the only fuel of which there has been any evidence of any shortage, and that shortage is now being rapidly overcome.
I have here Circular No. 13 dated 17th March, 1965, produced by the hon. Gentleman's Ministry. It is headed "Clean Air Act, 1956", and states:
The Parliamentary Secretary made it cleat to the Clean Air Council that the producers' present forecasts of fuel availability were based on the assumption that for purposes of the Clean Air Act grant the present freedom of choice between fuels and appliances would continue to operate when future smoke control areas were established.
The interesting point is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power has made a statement within the last few weeks, in which he had some very pertinent observations to make about the position with regard to smokeless fuels.
Speaking of "Domestic Fuel Supplies and the Clean Air Policy"—Command 2231—he said:
This forecast that supplies of smokeless fuels of all types should be adequate to meet demand, with the exception of the open-fire solid fuels.
There, again, he indicated that there is only the one shortage, that of open fire solid fuels—no shortage of liquid fuels in regard to which Manchester Corporation is also asking for powers under Clause 48. The hon. Gentleman said:
I am pleased to be able to tell the Council that the National Coal Board and the private producers are now going forward with plans


for increased production of open-fire fuels which should materially improve the situation predicted in the White Paper.
He also said:
These prospects … indicate that supplies of open-grate fuels should be adequate to meet expected demand, although consumers may sometimes have to buy more expensive varieties a reactive fuel when their first preference would be the cheaper gas cokes.
That was issued—[Interruption.] There are lots of things that the hon. Gentleman, who has not been here for a great length of time, may not think it right to be raised in Parliament, but I believe that it is correct that there is no great shortage——

Mr. Mellish: The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman is taking so long to say so little.

Mr. Burden: That may be so. If I have taken so long to say so little I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The statement continued:
but I am also advised by producers that they expect regional difficulties in the supply of reactive open-grate fuel to be largely overcome during the next two years.
So the total time for which Manchester Corporation asks these powers under Clause 48 to operate is only two years at a maximum. The evidence shows that there is no shortage of liquid fuel, nor is there likely to be. The only solid fuel of which there is any shortage at the moment is the open grate solid fuel and the Government have themselves stated as a result of investigations that the shortage will disappear entirely within the next two years. Lord Robens and others engaged in the manufacture of smokeless fuels have stated that they are increasing very considerably their production to meet the demand. In the circumstances, I suggest that Clause 48 is entirely unnecessary.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Will Griffiths: I shall try to answer the arguments of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) as quickly as possible because I know that hon. Members wish to discuss the very important Clause 41. The hon. Member began by saying that this Clause had nothing to do with the beauty of Manchester. In saying that he was almost as inaccurate

as he was in so many other passages of his speech.

Mr. Burden: The architectural beauty.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member ought to know that the architectural beauty of a city can be marred to the extent that the atmosphere is polluted. He ought to know that Manchester has a good record in implementing the Clean Air Act. Manchester Corporation has a smoke-control plan which contemplates that nearly a quarter of a million premises will be subject to smoke control orders by the end of 1969. At the end of 1964 there were already 61,660 premises covered by smoke-control orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan), who is a Mancunian but does not represent a Manchester constituency, has reminded me of the dramatic illustrations one may find of the value of smoke-control.
My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Manchester Town Hall extension, built about 30 years ago, is already scarred and stained by pollution and eight years ago some remedial work was carried out to the facade of the building. In eight years during which smoke control has been in operation the repaired facade has been unblemished by the traditional pocking and ruining of the stonework which is so much a feature of industrial areas of the North. The hon. Member for Gillingham should appreciate that this is very much a question of beauty and, of course, of the health of the community.
This Clause would simply enable the corporation to enter into an agreement with manufacturers or suppliers of smokeless fuel and oil. The hon. Gentleman at great length sought to demonstrate, first, that if the Corporation had the Clause Manchester's ratepayers would be involved in very considerable expenditure. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman advanced lengthy reasons why it was unnecessary to have the Clause—because there was in reality no shortage of smokeless fuel. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman—I sought to intervene, but he would not give way—I thought how clearly this showed what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, that these expert opinions are precisely the matters


that should be probed by the Select Committee. If we were here for a long time, which we are not, I could go to the Library and examine the hon. Gentleman's proposition. I think that it was only part of the story. It is precisely for the reasons the hon. Gentleman gave that these matters should be examined by the Select Committee.

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I will give way, as I am more generous than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Burden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I gave way a considerable number of times. Has the hon. Gentleman with him at this moment a copy of the Bill? If so, would he look at page 31, line 36, which lays it down that the corporation will have the power to sell to anybody? If it has the power to sell to anybody, it means retail also, as I see it. If not, why should it not be designated?

Mr. Griffiths: I am not myself particularly worried about that sort of consideration. The hon. Gentleman may know that the corporation has said categorically that it has no intention of entering the distribution trade. For the protection of the trade, the corporation has said that it would be prepared to agree to the insertion of a provision requiring the corporation
(a) to consult with representatives of the wholesale and retail fuel trade before entering into any agreement under subsection (2) of Clause 48, and
(b) before selling direct to the public any smokeless fuel acquired by them under the clause to offer it first to the trade for distribution and sale at a price which would have regard both to the cost to the Corporation and the market prices of the fuel obtaining at that time.
That is a definite undertaking given by the corporation.
The hon. Gentleman was rough on his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) when he accused him of not knowing what was in the Bill, because the hon. Member for Withington knew that the corporation was prepared to give that undertaking.

Sir C. Taylor: To whom was this undertaking given? I, for one, was unaware of the undertaking. I have been in constant touch with the Parliamentary Agents and also with some officials of the

Manchester Corporation. It is news to me.

Mr. Griffiths: This is very extraordinary, because the hon. Member for East-bourne (Sir C. Taylor) is an experienced Parliamentarian. It is in the Vote Office. It is a statement in which the Corporation says of Clause 48 that it would give these guarantees. This is available to all hon. Members.
I am no great expert, but I am advised that because of technological changes in the gas industry coke is becoming scarcer. Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has urged the electricity supply industry to use more coal, I should have thought that there will be a general rundown here. Inevitably coke is becoming scarcer.
I understand that the Government's policy is to regain the momentum in the establishment of smoke-control areas. There was, because of changes in fuel policy, a cut-back of smoke-control areas but I understand that the Government are now anxious that their establishment should go ahead. Manchester Corporation wants to complete its programme by 1969 and it seems to me perfectly reasonable that the Corporation, if it satisfies the Select Committee after producing witnesses and evidence, should have the powers.
As the corporation puts it,
The object of the Clause is not to enable the Corporation to enter into competition with the trade in the retail distribution of smokeless fuel but to encourage manufacturers and suppliers to invest their capital in plant and equipment to produce the additional supplies of smokeless fuel which will be required by rigorous application of the smoke-control policy in future.
This is what the Government want.

Sir C. Taylor: What is the hon. Member reading from now?

Mr. Griffiths: I am reading from notes supplied to me by the Manchester Corporation. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he says that Manchester Members do not say anything about the Bill and do not answer the case, but when a Manchester Member tries to give him the case from the Manchester point of view he appears to think that there is something disreputable about it.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government will not confirm smoke-control areas or extensions of them unless he is satisfied that there is an adequate supply of fuel available. Therefore, if Manchester is to complete its programme it is important that it should persuade the Select Committee that it should have these powers. We know that the Coal Board is engaged on the extension of plants for the production of smokeless fuel and it is significant that the Board does not petition against the Bill. I have already said that supplies will be marketed through normal commercial channels. Manchester City Corporation gives an assurance about that. I quite understand that the apprehensions of hon. Members opposite, which I do not share, will not be allayed unless these words in the Bill are amended. I have quoted to the House certain undertakings which the corporation is prepared to give, which may or may not satisfy hon. Members. I should have thought that the undertakings went a long way, if not entirely, towards allaying the apprehensions of people in the retail and wholesale trade.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Member quoted from the latest statement issued by the Manchester Corporation which is available in the Vote Office and he said that the corporation has given an undertaking not to engage in retail trade. I also quoted from that document. The corporation said it was prepared to include a provision requiring it
before selling direct to the public any smokeless acquired by them under the clause to offer it first to the trade for distribution …
There is certainly no undertaking whatsoever in that statement that the corporation would not engage in the retail trade.

Mr. Griffiths: Hon. Members opposite profess to have considerable regard for the interests of the ratepayers. I put it to the House and to the hon. Member for Gillingham in particular, that if the House decides to give Manchester Corporation the powers contained in the Clause, and if the corporation gave these undertakings to the trade which it promises to do, then if the corporation failed to secure the co-operation of the trade it would have a perfect right to dispose of the fuel itself to protect the interests of the ratepayers. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Burden: And the ratepayers also have a right to know the capital cost which would be involved in a thoroughgoing distribution of these fuels by the Manchester Corporation.

Mr. Griffiths: I quite agree, but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I rely upon the good sense of the people in the distributive trade. I do not think that they will make such heavy weather of this. I do not believe that those whom the hon. Member for Withington calls the factors would be so unwilling to co-operate as is suggested. They have been terribly harassed in the smokeless zone in the Wythenshawe area by their customers begging them to get supplies which they have not been able to get. I should have thought that not only would the manufacturers of the fuel be delighted to have an assured market but that the distributors would as well. Hon. Members are making heavy weather of this.
I have been interrupted many times. I conclude in this way. I beg the House not to accept this Instruction to the Select Committee for the reasons which the Parliamentary Secretary advanced when we were discussing the previous Instruction. There is here so much that a Select Committee can decide better than we can when the expert witnesses come before it.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I support the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) bent over backwards in trying to explain that there were all sorts of conditions which would prevent Manchester Corporation from embarking on municipal trading. If that is the intention of what is set out in the document from which the hon. Gentleman read, why is it necessary to have Clause 48 in the Bill at all? I am extremely concerned about Clause 48. Not only would it provide for the setting up of municipal trading in Manchester but it might well create a precedent so that we had municipal trading coming in all over the country. In a sense, it is a form of creeping nationalisation.
Like many hon. Members, I welcome the Bill in its general terms. I come from a local authority area, Greater London,


every bit as proud as Manchester, and I fully appreciate all the observations and arguments advanced by hon. Members from the Manchester area about the importance of the Bill to them. But the inclusion of Clause 48 will have repercussions of a very significant political nature and going far beyond the needs of Manchester.
I shall state my three basic contentions before dealing with the detailed points about solid smokeless fuel. This form of municipal trading is outside the scope of the activities of a normal local authority, or it should be. It could easily give rise to a situation in which there was competition between the local authority and its own ratepayers, people in the distributive trade. If the Clause were accepted, Manchester Corporation or any other local authority might well regard it as a very successful exercise and look for other ways of making excursions into commerce in its own area.

Mr. Charles Morris: And reduce the rates?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Coming from a large local authority area where the rate burden is already enormous, I can only say that I simply do not believe that any efforts in municipal trading in the Greater London area would improve matters.
It has been said by several hon. Members that the intention of the Clause is to help the corporation to institute smoke-control areas in the city. This, of course, is something which should be welcomed. I am advised that any shortages which exist can be put right, that the distributive trade is quite able to carry on the business of getting the fuels to the householders and that the manufacturers are in a position to meet the orders if required. The very good relations which the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange spoke about between the distributive trade and the Corporation and the manufacturers will surely ensure that this takes place.
The danger under this Clause is that the corporation will have priority in the supplies of smokeless fuel.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House earlier. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he was."] He is making from his point of view a well

argued speech, but is he not aware that the apprehensions he is describing are not shared by his Conservative colleagues of Manchester City Council? They are quite satisfied with this Clause. Has he also never heard of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, founded by Joseph Chamberlain, and of all sorts of other municipal enterprises founded and supported by far-seeing and enlightened Conservative statesmen who were far more progressive than some of the young Tories who have come to the House recently?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) for improving my knowledge of history. But what he spoke of took place some time ago and I am not so worried about Birmingham as about the precedent that this Bill, particularly Clause 48, may have for all of us, in London and elsewhere as well as in Manchester. Incidentally, I have been here since the debate started.
I am also worried about the possibility of the local authority cornering the supply of a fuel. One could have a situation of acute shortage with Manchester Corporation, under Clause 48, being in a position of monopoly in the supplies of smokeless solid fuel. I hope the situation would never arise in which tenants of the corporation were getting solid smokeless fuel while others, who might well be ratepayers, could not get it. In such a situation real hardship could exist in Manchester.
But most objectionable of all is that the Clause creates a precedent. If it goes through, other local authorities will want these powers and if they get them those who do not come within the orbit of those authorities will be at a great disadvantage. We should be creating a system of municipal trading with local authorities possibly taking away the livelihoods of distributors throughout the country and in a position to corner supplies of certain fuels. They would be in a position to build a network of nationalisation of the distributive trade in solid smokeless fuel and perhaps in many other things as well.
It is also possible, for example, that Manchester Corporation might get hold of a supply of a highly reactive fuel and


operate smokeless fuel zones through open hearth fires as opposed to room heaters as suggested in the White Paper on Domestic Fuel Supplies and Clean Air Policy. We might see a situation in which a local authority was able to do this and to apply smoke-control policies more cheaply than those areas which were having to do it with room heaters, which are a more expensive system. One would get a rush of other local a authorities seeking to do it as cheaply.

Mr. Stanley Orme: That is enterprise.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: It may be enterprise, but it is not an enterprise that protects the ratepayer. This is creeping nationalisation. If this provision goes through. we will get a system of municipal training tantamount to Government trading at the distributive end of the coal trade.
If Manchester gets this power, the solid fuel business in Manchester will be dominated by the local authority. Whatever hon. Members like to say about it, that is what will happen. It will deprive the existing distributive trade or a livelihood and, regardless of all the conditions which have been read to us, there will be a situation in which the corporation will tend to enter this trade more and more.
That could lead to friction between those who are tenants of the corporation and those ratepayers who are not. It could lead to a situation in which other authorities wanted these powers. As hon. Members are well aware, the Manchested Chamber of Commerce has stated its objections to the Clause at some length and I very much hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us something to encourage us, or that at some later stage we shall be able to make sure that Clause 48 does not become part of the Manchester Corporation Bill.

9.36 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I intervene only briefly because we have another Instruction which we have to dispose of before ten o'clock.
This Clause would allow the Manchester Corporation to make agreements

to guarantee a market for specified quantities of solid smokeless fuel or liquid fuel. As we understand it, the object is to encourage manufacturers of these fuels to increase their capacities. As the House knows, one of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities is for clean air and from that point of view we find the Clause unobjectionable. Smoke control is not going forward as fast as it should, particularly in the North-West. If Manchester Corporation—and I say "if"—thinks it has devised a scheme to remove all doubt about the sufficiency of supplies of smokeless fuel, it should be allowed to argue its case before the Select Committee.
The Clause has met some opposition from fuel distributors. We are aware of that and I know that the corporation has been discussing ways and means of meeting those objections, but so far, I understand, it has not obtained the agreement of the distributors. This is precisely the sort of issue which should be considered by the Committee and I ask the House, if there is a Division on the Instruction, to reject it.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and I have been closely associated. I had him oppose me at a General Election and I have great affection for him, because on that occasion he lost his deposit. I hope that on this occasion he will lose his Instruction, if he presses it to a Division.

Mr. Burden: In reply to that rather personal note, there are hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Gentleman, who, if they fought some Conservative seats, would lose their deposit.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Frank Taylor: I want, first, to align myself with those who have said that, in essence, this is a first-class Bill, which we all thoroughly welcome. It is the Bill of a great city and contains plans to transform a large area of the city into a thoroughly up-to-date development of which, when it is completed, we shall be proud.
But it is our duty to look further than that into the Bill and to study the implications, and the implications are probably more important than the expressed intentions. We have to study the actual wording of the Bill and what


can happen if it is implemented as introduced. There is no doubt that it contains a number of provisions which are far removed from town planning, provisions which, if brought into effect, would further Socialism in Manchester and provide an important precedent for many other organisations.
I was quite surprised at the wording of Clause 48, because it is revolutionary. I was still surprised when I read the details which we received from Manchester Corporation telling us what was intended, because its reason for putting the Clause in the Bill is apparently to ensure a supply of solid fuel and for that purpose it proposes to subsidise the fuel by guaranteeing a market to manufacturers to encourage them to increase output. This faces the ratepayers with the possibility of a heavy call being made on the rates. The only advantage is the attempt to ensure a continuity of supply. The ratepayers will have several thoughts before being willing to enter into an unknown responsibility and liability in this way.
We all support the clean air policy. It is thoroughly right in principle. But I have had many complaints from my constituents about this matter. Solid fuel is not welcomed all that much as a lillywhite and wonderful product of the future. I have had complaints about its quality. I am told that it will not burn and that it creates an extraordinary number of fumes in the room, although it is supposed to be smoke free. The price is very unpopular, especially with pensioners. I have had grave complaints about its inefficiency and its burning capacity.
I do not believe that the corporation needs to give a guarantee. Private enterprise is capable of increasing its productivity if it can see a ready market. I am sure that the situation will very quickly be put right. In fact, we have intimations that a solution is on the way and that there will be no shortage in two years. If the Bill goes through, the corporation will still have the right to open up in competition and to open a chain of petrol garages, and not only in Manchester. It seems to me from reading the Bill that it can also sell liquid fuel. There is no restriction. Surely this is

outside the bounds of the corporation's requirements.
I believe that the Bill goes far beyond what is necessary. It is a thoroughly good Bill in principle, but we should not allow Socialism to be pushed into odd corners of it in this way. If these little dirty corners of the Bill which make it a parallel in many ways to the infamous Clause 4 in another document are cleaned up, perhaps in Committee, it will receive a great welcome in the House and we should all be only too pleased to help push it through with the maximum efficiency and in the minimum time. But while it contains these examples of pure Socialism, many of us on this side must hold back the wholehearted support for it which we should like to give.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: It is time that a Conservative Member from Manchester joined in the debate, which has been going on for some time. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have claimed the right of a Member of Parliament to criticise any Government. No one disagrees with that. No one suggests that it is an abuse of the House. But I believe that what has happened tonight has been a misuse of the House. Some hon. Members are getting into a rut. To use a term in their own profession, they are becoming vexatious litigants. They spend time discussing proposals and then, not having the courage of their convictions and putting them to the vote, withdraw them having received no more information at the end of the debate than they had at the beginning of it. This is a waste of time.
This matter has been debated and criticised by hon. Members opposite from Crosby, Gillingham, Eastbourne, Run-corn, Darwen and Shipley.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: to the best of my knowledge, I have not spoken so far. I am waiting to speak on the next Instruction. I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman, first, that my constituency is as near to Manchester as his, and, secondly, that I am a ratepayer in that city. I very much doubt whether he is.

Mr. Ogden: I challenge the hon. Gentleman on that. My home town borders Manchester and I have worked


in that city for the past 14 years. I believe that the hon. Member's name appears to an Instruction which, to put it in the most generous way, is a criticism of the Bill. I have referred to hon. Members who have put their names to Instructions for discussion tonight. That is criticism. I am simply suggesting fairly that it was time a Conservative Member from Manchester gave his point of view. There are not quite so many Conservative Members from Manchester now as there were some little time ago. They are equally capable of putting their point of view without a great deal of help and assistance from anyone outside.
When hon. Members have referred to smokeless fuel and whether there is a shortage of it, they have not been quite fair. There are many type of smokeless fuel. The majority of them have been available and are usable in the open type of grate which we have in the North, but there has been, and there still is, a shortage of that kind of fuel.
Clause 48 refers to
any manufacturer or supplier of smokeless fuel or liquid fuel".
Twice in the Clause liquid fuel is mentioned. Manchester has been built by hard work on an island of coal. I suggest to my hon. Friends that Manchester could well do with giving support to its own industry, because it has one of the finest coal mines in the north of England or anywhere else.

Sir D. Glover: As the hon. Member has that view, perhaps he will support our Instruction.

Mr. Ogden: I never was able to understand the reasoning of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), and I do not follow it now.
I suggest that rather than going in for liquid fuel from abroad, Manchester, which has a coal mine, less than a mile from the city centre—Bradford Colliery, one of the deepest, with some of the best seams, to which we can arrange a visit for anybody who wants to go—should support is own ratepayers, workpeople and employment.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I hesitate to intervene in the affairs of the City of Manchester, and I certainly would not say whether it

is a beautiful city. The Amendment, however, is not about keeping the buildings clean. It is a question of who is to supply the smokeless fuels for the smokeless zone. This is a matter which very much concerns all hon. Members and people throughout the country. My hon. Friends are right to raise this matter and to follow it up, because this is not a parochial matter concerning Manchester but a question of principle which the House has every right to debate.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in what must have been about the shortest speech on record, said that the object of the Clause was to give the corporation power to encourage the manufacture of smokeless fuels. I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman, who has the whole weight of his Department's advice behind him, but as I read the Clause it gives the corporation power to buy smokeless fuel, both liquid and solid. It gives the power to guarantee the sale of a quantity, which entails financial commitment. It gives the corporation power to sell to other local authorities and they in turn would have to get rid of those smokeless fuels. It therefore gives the corporation a power to indulge in trade in its own right. It gives the corporation power to trade in solid and liquid fuels throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. If that is the same as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's definition of the Clause, I do not understand it. Nor can the hon. Gentleman slide out of this by saying that it is a technical decision which could be left to the Committee to decide. It is a great question of principle as to whether a corporation, and one only throughout the country, should be given these wide powers.
I have read the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill and the only argument that has been put forward for the Clause is that they apprehend that the demand may exceed the supply. Whatever else may be true, this certainly is not true of oil. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) made this point with great force. Nobody can conceive that there will be a shortage of oil in the foreseeable future, and I think that much the same comment applies to coal. But, even if there were to be a shortage of coal, it would not necessarily be the right way to handle the shortage to give


one corporation, and one only, throughout the whole of England, Scotland and Wales the power to preempt if it can scarce supplies from the National Coal Board or other suppliers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) developed this argument very well and forcefully, and I think that it is wrong to allow one corporation this power if we are not bringing this in as a public Bill to apply to all local authorities so that, in the same way, they can preempt supplies of fuel for their own purposes on an equal and fair basis, going back to a form of rationing as it were.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) referred to two provisos which the Corporation had offered. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, they do not go any distance to meet the objections which my hon. Friends have made to the Clause. The first proviso simply says that the corporation will consult representatives of the wholesale and retail fuel trade before entering into any agreement under subsection (2) of Clause 48. To consult is not enough. We all know that mere consultation does not go anywhere near giving the wholesale and retail trades the assurance which they need.
The second proviso is simply to offer fuel to the trade for distribution and sale at a price which would have regard both to the cost to the corporation and the market price of fuels obtaining at that time. If the corporation is able to dictate the cost at which it is going to offer the fuels it possesses to the distribution trade, it can easily price the other people out of the market and continue in its monopoly as a supplier.
I do not believe that these two provisos go anywhere near meeting the objections of principle which my hon. Friends have put forward. If the Corporation had offered the House some more substantial guarantees that it would not enter into municipal trading in fuel, both liquid and smokeless, we would have been happy to let the Clause go unchallenged, but there is no comfort to be derived from these two provisos.
I submit that it is inexcusable to include oil in this Clause. There seems to be no reason why Manchester Corpora-

tion should not make a bargain with the Sheik of Kuwait, build a fleet of tankers, build a refinery, and import oil into this country. The Bill gives the Corporation power to do that. We all know that it probably will not want to use this power, but I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider the effect on the rates in Manchester if the corporation decided to exercise that power. This is not the purpose of a corporation.
There is a minimum economic unit for doing these things. One cannot market oil in 2d. packets, nor can one set up a coal merchant's business on a very small scale. This operation has to be carried out on a sizeable economic scale, and the capital investment might be very large. This is surely a question on which the ratepayers of Manchester Corporation have every right to be consulted before it is put in a Bill of this sort.
If we are to have this sort of backdoor nationalisation of fuel distribution, it should be done in a public Bill. We should have an opportunity of debating the principle as a whole. I do not know whether the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) and Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) would agree with it, but at least they should be given the opportunity to read this in a Public Bill, and not in a Private Bill of this nature. I do not believe that Clause 48 has been anything like well enough thought out. If we are going to nationalise fuel distribution in Manchester let us think the Clause out, in respect of matters such as compensation and fair trading. This is not at all the right way to proceed with the Bill.
It is never possible to contemplate competition between a municipal body and private traders engaging in the same trade. We shall never be told how the overheads are allocated, or how much of the taxpayers' capital has been allocated to the fuel business, or what is the exact profit or loss made on that part of the corporation's activities which deals with its trading in fuel. It will be impossible to determine the true cost of the activities of the corporation. Therefore, all competition, by its very nature, must be phoney.

Mr. L. M. Lever: The corporation's accounts are published in every detail and particular.

Mr. Ridley: I thought that the hon. Member was raising a point of order. I am delighted that I gave way to him. That is not so—because if a certain number of people occupy a building it is impossible to discover how much of the cost of providing that building is due to municipal activities and how much to trading activities. If a large amount of capital is invested by the corporation it is impossible to determine how much of the interest is due to its activities as a local authority and how much to its activities as a trading institution. We cannot separate and isolate the costs in the case of an institution such as a corporation which is trying to do both things at the same time. Therefore, it is not right that Manchester Corporation should take power under the Bill to set up a State trading organisation in fuel.
I seriously suggest that the House would be unwise to give the corporation powers as wide as those which I have outlined. If the corporation wants fewer powers it should put fewer powers in the Bill. There was nothing to prevent its explaining much more carefully than it has done what it really wanted, and inserting limited powers in the Bill to which the House could agree with pleasure.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: This debate has been an interesting exercise in flights of imagination. One hon. Member attempted to intimidate the House by suggesting that if Manchester Corporation was given the limited powers of the Clause it would make a corner of smokeless fuel in short supply and restrict supplies to its own tenants.
The reasonable inference is that rioting would break out in the streets, and that this would be mollified only by persons seeking tankfuls of fuel supplied by hypothetical petrol pumps of the corporation, which, in turn, would be shipping in vast quantities of oil by reason of an agreement entered into with the Sheik of Kuwait.
Far from persuading me to shackle the Committee which will now be examining the Bill, I would have thought that these complex and imaginative threats required the closest examination.

Sir C. Taylor: Sir C. Taylor rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be

now put, but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Lever: I would have thought—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Experience suggests that if only one hon. Member makes a speech at any one time we make better progress.

Mr. Lever: I would have thought that in view of the fears voiced by hon. Members opposite they would have welcomed the closest scrutiny of this Clause by a Committee of the House, so that its manifest evils and dangers, if any, should be exposed before the public gaze and the threat that the Manchester Corporation is, according to them, making to the lives and liberties of the citizens whom it is supposed to represent should be widely known.
In those circumstances, the House having decided that this Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee, I am very anxious that without any sort of shackle or any hindrance—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South) rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress to sit again Tomorrow.

COMMONS REGISTRATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the registration of common land and of town or village greens, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources in paying to the Commons Commmissioners and assessors appointed under that Act fees and travelling and other allowances and in providing those Commissioners with services and facilities for the discharge of their functions;


(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I wish to continue what I was asking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources yesterday. I do so because I believe that the answer which he gave was erroneous.
The House will recall that yesterday I asked why it was necessary to have the sums of money payable out of the rate deficiency grant. I said that this was a clumsy way of using the rate deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant for paying money for such sums as were necessary to the local councils who would be engaged in dealing with the Register. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that this was the only way of getting money to the councils concerned. I think there are other methods and that this is not the best or the easiest way to see that this function is carried out by the county councils or county boroughs which are the authorities designated under the Bill. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why he gave me the reply that he did.
My second point, which is very short, is that in the last line of the Money Resolution which we are discussing there are the words, "or in Scotland". As I understand, there is no common land whatever in Scotland and neither do town greens come under this designation. It would seem that the drafting of this subsection in the Money Resolution is loose and that these three words should not appear. I should like to know why they have been put in.

10.5 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I am glad that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) gave me a run yesterday so that I could check the information which I could then

give without very much consideration. Those who advise me say that the answer I gave was correct. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said that it was the only practical way in which sums from the Exchequer could be made available to the local authorities. The history of the matter is that in 1960, in the period of the previous Administration, there were negotiations with the Treasury over the method of paying towards what was a new burden on local councils. At one time, the Treasury was prepared to consider the possibility of going back to a percentage basis grant, but, on reflection, that view did not prevail. The decision was taken more than twelve months ago.
Consequently, one is left now making financial provision within the general grant orders. The position is that, in the case of those authorities whose average rateable value does not come up to the general average of all authorities, that difference is made good by the rate deficiency fund, and there is a very complicated formula for calculating it, which I do not think that the hon. Member would want me to go into now, even if it was my province. I am advised that it is necessary, if we wish to ensure practical assistance to poorer authorities which may involve a contribution from the rate deficiency fund, to word the resolution in this way.
It is calculated that the sum to be required over five years which will fall upon all the authorities is so small that it probably will not affect rate deficiency grant.
I was asked also about the last line in the resolution and the reference to Scotland. The reason that the financial memorandum has to refer to Exchequer equalisation grants, the Scottish equivalent of the rate deficiency grants, even though the Bill does not apply to Scotland—as the hon. Member said, there are no common lands as we understand them in Scotland—is that under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, the Exchequer equalisation grants are calculated in total at a sum equal to 11/80ths of the grant payable to the local authorities in England and Wales in the corresponding financial year. Thus, any increase in the rate deficiency grant arising out of the Bill would affect the Exchequer equalisation
grants. Therefore, they must be set out in the resolution or the calculations could not be made accurately.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he not agree that this is a terribly complicated way of doing it? His speech, for which I am grateful and which is as clear as it can be, demonstrates how terribly difficult it is. It is absolutely nonsensical, when we have no intention of spending any money in Scotland, to bring Scotland into the Resolution. It is almost the wrong way of doing it. I would add that there are other more practical methods. What the hon. Gentleman says is that the sum should be small, that therefore it will not affect the rate deficiency grant at all and that the ratepayers should pay for this.
This was not the intention of the hon. Gentleman in his speeches yesterday. Will he look at this once again? It should be possible to find a method of direct payment—direct hiring perhaps—for the 147 county councils and county boroughs. It would not be a vast sum. This would be by far the most satisfactory method.

Mr. Skeffington: In the financial arrangements, we shall look at that question. In so far as making reference to the rate deficiency grant is concerned, the only practical way of making them is the way in which it has been done in the Resolution. On the Scottish point, this is a formula which generally applies. If the Scottish equalisation grant is a fixed mathematical proportion of the grant for England and Wales, there is nothing which this Department can do to alter it. I will see that the points which the hon. Member has made are conveyed to the right quarter.

Question put and agreed to.

ROAD LAYBYS (SANITARY FACILITIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Harriet Slater.]

10.10 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise a matter which is becoming more and more well known throughout the county, a problem which has arisen mainly in recent years, particularly in the

last two or three years. It is the lack of toilet facilities on main and trunk roads.
This is becoming a more pressing problem the whole time, particularly in holiday areas and on and near roads which are traversed by holidaymakers. The problem also applies to the daily traveller going to and from work. This must be so since many people commute by car to the main centres.
It is not necessary for rue, in view of the short time available for the debate and since several of my hon. Friends wish to speak, to go into all of the details involved in this problem. It is, after all, basically a very simple one. The amount of traffic on our roads has increased tremendously in recent years. The existing toilet facilities are badly signposted and inadequate. There is no dispute about this and one need only visit particularly the country areas to realise how severe the problem is.
A look at laybys, hedgerows and fields adjoining main and trunk roads, particularly at holiday times, reveals how badly fouled they become by human excreta. A recent survey carried out on the A.1, between London and Edinburgh showed that 40 per cent. of the laybys were fouled in this way, which is a shocking state of affairs. It must be realised that if laybys, hedgerows and fields are to continue to be soiled in this way, bad habits, like strewing litter, are bound to be encouraged.
The situation in my constituency, North Cornwall, is particularly bad. The laybys between Cornwall and Exeter during the Easter holidays were full of vehicles by 10.30 each night and the following mornings they were found to have been fouled by the people who had been staying in them. That is not to say that the travelling public want to foul these places. It is simply that toilet facilities are either not available nearby or are otherwise not easily found.
It should be remembered that the fouling of laybys, hedgerows, and fields can lead to great danger. The National Farmers' Union is extremely perturbed by the hazards which can arise among animals and, through them, back to humans. For example, there is the threat of T.B. and dysentery, to name but two. Such diseases can be passed back through the meat of sheep and bullocks and through the milk of cows. It is obvious,


therefore, that the existing toilet facilities are not adequate and must be improved and increased in number.
The necessity for improving them has already been accepted. It was accepted by the previous Administration and I am sure that the present Government will accept it. The acceptance of it by the Government is obvious, since in the construction of the motorways grants are made available for the provision of these facilities. Along the 345 miles of motorways there are toilet facilities. Along the 8,347 miles of trunk and main roads there are very few such facilities indeed.
It is all to easy to subdivide the problem between the town and the country, although it exists in both. Generally speaking, there is a reasonable number of toilet facilities available in the towns, although it is extremely difficult to find them. Of great importance here, therefore, is proper signposting. Signposts should be illuminated and there should be easy access to toilets, as well as parking facilities nearby, so that the public who use the trunk and main roads are always able to find toilets when they are travelling in urban or built up areas. It will be seen that this is mainly a question of illumination and direction, although in some places there can be no doubt that additional toilet facilities will have to be built.
In the countryside the problem is an altogether different one. A great deal must be done to provide more toilet facilities and, when that work has been done, those facilities must be properly sign-posted and illuminated. What would be the cost? There are two types of toilet facility that can be built. The first is the continuous chemical type—with which, I think the Parliamentary Secretary is familiar, as an experiment has been carried out in Oxfordshire by the county council, the maintenance being done by the Bullindon Rural District Council. This type costs about £1,700, and needs a very small tank to drain away the fluid. That is not a very great sum of money.
The second type is a much more elaborate construction. It calls for mains water and septic tanks, and is, as a result, much more expensive. The cost of that type would be about £2,500 or £2,600. The difficulty arises in the fact that it has

been found that over a 10-year period the cost of maintenance and repair of damage caused by hooliganism is exactly the same as the initial cost. Therefore, during that period, with the first type, there is the initial £1,700 for construction and an additional sum of £1,700 for maintenance and repair. One therefore has to double the cost over the 10–year period.
As I say, an experiment has been carried out in Oxfordshire on the A.40. The Oxfordshire County Council built the continuous chemical type of facility, which has since been maintained by the Bullingdon R.D.C. I understand that in the season over 200 people per hour use this facility. It is proving a great success, and there has been very little hooliganism.
If this experiment proves successful, one then has to determine how many of these facilities we should have in the country. I should have thought that in open country, outside the built-up areas, a frequency of one every 20 miles is needed. If that is right, the cost on trunk roads only would be about £½ million. If one were built every 12 miles the cost would be just over £1 million, the same as the cost of one mile of motorway. At intervals of 25 miles the cost would be half a million pounds. In addition, one has to remember that a further half a million pounds would be needed for maintenance and repair of damage over the 10–year period.
This is a very urgent problem. We are coming up to the holiday season, and in the West Country, in particular, we have encountered this problem already over the Easter weekend. It was an extremely unhappy experience as it always is, and as it has been year after year, building up to a crescendo now. I shudder to think what will happen this summer in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset, unless such facilities as these are made available.
The main problem, as always, is where the money is to come from, and how it should be apportioned. I notice that there was a meeting at the beginning of the week between the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport and the various organisations that are interested in the subject. The Minister, therefore, has understanding of the problem, and realises its urgency. Quite obviously, the cost—and I hope that this was made clear to the Minister at the meeting, as I want


to make it clear now—cannot be borne entirely by the rural district councils or the county councils. There must be a Government grant, and the question revolves around how much the Government grant should be.
The easiest thing would be to say that the Government, the county councils and the rural district councils should each pay one-third of the cost, but that would be quite unacceptable. That would be to put far too great a burden on the county councils, and, in my view, on the rural district councils as well. This is part of the services which the Government should provide and councils administer. I believe that a Government grant of 75 per cent. is absolutely vital if we are to have enough of these facilities. The total cost, including maintenance, would not be more than £1 million over 10 years. That is not a great sum, particularly when one thinks of the sums of money the Government are spending on other services. In any case, it is vital that the decision should be taken, and taken quickly, that these facilities should be built and that the Government should give grants for that purpose.
The Government grant must certainly be more than one-third. It must be at least 50 per cent., and I would ask for a grant of 75 per cent., which I consider to be the right Government proportion. The cost over 10 years would be doubled because of repairs and maintenance, and the Government should also undertake to pay part of the maintenance and repair costs, as they do, after all, in regard to road maintenance. When trunk roads or main roads are torn up, or are broken by hooliganism, the Government make a grant of 90 per cent. for classified roads and 100 per cent. for trunk roads. The county council acts as agents. The same principle should be extended to repair and maintenance of these toilet facilities when they have been constructed. I hope that the Government will look at this matter seriously, because otherwise the burden could be too much for county councils and rural district councils.
In places where toilet facilities have been provided in laybys hooliganism has caused damage. An additional safeguard against that would be some form of camping facilities at some laybys which

would help in the guarding of these facilities. This is necessary because, with modern methods of holiday travel, many people camp and sleep out at laybys. If, every 50 miles, camping sites were based near these toilet facilities, it would be a great advantage. Perhaps it would help to defray some of the costs.
I hope that there will be trial areas where the experiment can be carried out this summer in a way similar to what has been done in Oxfordshire. I hope that such areas would be in the Eastern Counties—many people travel to Margate and places in that area—in the North, and certainly in the West Country. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to use Cornwall as a pilot area and to see whether such a system could be extended over the whole country. I wish to impress on him how vital it is to have such a scheme, not only for my constituency, but for the whole country, and that these facilities should be made available at the earliest possible moment.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he accepts the necessity, that a grant of at least 75 per cent. can be made, and, in addition, a portion for maintenance paid over a 10–year period. If this is not done there will be danger to health and the whole system will be liable to breakdown, to the great detriment to the travelling public and the rural areas. This is something that we cannot leave unattended. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help us in this problem.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has covered the case almost as completely as possible, but there are one or two points I should like to make.
The private motor vehicle is at the root of this problem. The long-distance lorry driver uses transport cafes and regular users of motor coach tours use the hotel and other provisions made on those routes. The private motor car is the category of vehicle which will be increasing in relation to the total number of road users more than any other category in the next decade. The problem is serious now, but it will thus get a great deal worse. Something will have to be done. The question is who should do it. In the


West Riding, and particularly in my constituency where we have a long chunk of A.1 between Ferrybridge and Borough-bridge, the intensity of traffic on trunk roads is a result of policies taken at Ministry level. The Government have provided trunk roads and Treasury Ministers have provided encouragement to the motor industry. The general prosperity of the country is producing a huge increase in private motoring and this is a national problem for which the provision of a solution is a national responsibility. The impact is local but the responsibility is national.
The Rural District Councils Association wants a 100 per cent. grant for construction and maintenance but if that cannot be provided it would be pleased to get a 75 per cent. grant. It is beyond the capacity of rural district councils to finance this matter themselves. It would be necessary to provide facilities on each side of the road for otherwise there will be a traffic hazard. Construction and maintenance costs for that would be entirely beyond the capacity of rural districts. So I ask the hon. Gentleman to give favourable consideration to provision of a maximum grant.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) for raising this important matter. I strongly support what he said. In my area, East Anglia, a number of surveys have recently been carried out by private individuals and by members of the National Farmers' Union, the details of which I would like to send to the Minister. I want to quote some examples along one road where a certain representative of the National Farmers' Union reported in the first layby paper, cellophane wrappers, beer cans, bottles, cardboard containers and drums. In the second layby he reported two old coppers and a cardboard box of rubbish. In the third layby he reported rubber, cardboard boxes and broken milk bottles. In the fourth he reported cans, paper, contraceptives and bottles. In the fifth he reported paper, boxes, bottles, car parts, bedsteads, metal drums and old sinks.
It is clear that the desecration of our countryside is becoming a very real problem, and as our population increases we

must tackle this problem. In the first instance, it must require Government leadership. I am not one who believes that these problems can be solved by Government action. It is a matter of the individual himself tackling the problem. It is in this field, as well as in the provision of money, that I would feel that a Government policy is best directed. I believe that we are moving to a period where many of our people are demanding higher standards in our national life. I hope that in tackling the problem the Government will not simply look at it just as a matter of providing more money. It is also a matter of individuals accepting the responsibility of not messing this country up. We are not a dirty people. I believe that if this matter is spotlighted, in the House and elsewhere, the British public in the end will have to clean up their laybys themselves.

10.27 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): We have heard a very powerful plea tonight from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). I know that many hon. Members are concerned about this serious problem. Several of them are here tonight. Some, like my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), who has pressed this matter for many years, are not.
As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said, this is a problem which has been serious for some time. It has been building up year after year. We definitely intend to do something about it. In my speech I shall announce that we shall be sponsoring a pilot scheme for the provision of sanitary facilities along certain stretches of trunk roads and that it will be launched as soon as possible.
Before coming to the details of that, may I say that I know that hon. Members have been frustrated for some time by a long period of relatively fruitless discussions. No one, least of all those of us at the Ministry of Transport, disputes that this problem has been getting worse over the years as a result of the tremendous increase in the traffic on trunk roads. It is most noticeable along these roads, which are my right hon. Friend's responsibility, but it also arises on other roads.
As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said, motorways are an exception. Toilet facilities are provided at the services areas on motorways. But they are not provided by us. In fact, service areas are provided on the motorways by the Ministry of Transport and on those areas there are toilet facilities.
The provision of more laybys, which, apparently, invite and concentrate abuse, and the greater number of by-pass schemes avoiding towns, which causes motorists to miss places where sanitary conveniences are available, have undoubtedly aggravated this problem.
The difficulty has been, frankly, the question, who should be responsible for dealing with this problem? And especially, of course, the inevitable question, where does the money come from? The trouble—let us be perfectly candid about it—is that although local health authorities have powers to provide conveniences the authorities, especially in rural areas, have great financial difficulties in finding the resources. Not unnaturally, they have been reluctant to spend ratepayers' money for travellers who are merely passing through their localities.
It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend ought to provide sanitary facilities upon trunk roads. The argument, as put by many hon. Members, runs that my right hon. Friend is the highway authority for these roads, therefore he ought to provide the sanitary facilities for the users of the roads. However, my right hon. Friend simply cannot be expected to meet all the needs of travellers on the roads. Many other things could be suggested—for example, the provision of bus shelters, and other things of that kind. My right hon. Friend has no power to provide lavatories on trunk roads under the law as it is, and that is the position we have inherited.
I come to the present position, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that we are now on the way, in spite of these difficulties, to adopting a pilot scheme which we hope to get going this summer for the provision of sanitary facilities along selected stretches of trunk roads. The County Surveyors' Society, through the County Councils' Association, has most helpfully investigated three representative sections of roads in detail, and we shall be glad to authorise the schemes

which they suggest. Moreover, the Rural District Councils' Association has sent us a very helpful report urging that the physical provision and maintenance of conveniences on trunk roads should be a public health function, and accepting that public health authorities ought to contribute to the costs. To us, these are very encouraging signs from the local authorities' associations, bodies which have the "know-how" and expert staff to deal with sanitary provisions.
My right hon. Friend also recognises that local authorities might have difficulty in meeting the full costs of the pilot schemes which we suggest. Therefore, I am able to say that we have obtained authority for an Exchequer contribution of one-third of the cost of providing sanitary facilities for these schemes in this financial year—and I may say that this is, of course, an extra-statutory contribution, since Parliament has given no powers for an advance for this purpose. I hope that I shall not be pressed to explain the position on that point.
At any rate, as the hon. Gentleman said, earlier this week there was a meeting of all those who have been concerned in this matter, the local authority associations, my Department, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is our hope that, as a result of that, we shall now have very speedy action, and it can happen this summer if we can get very quick agreement on the details. From these schemes we hope to get experience of the problems of the siting of sanitary facilities, their maintenance, and so on, and also to test that vandalism, a disease which, unfortunately, seems to be spreading all over the place, will not make these toilet facilities unusable and a waste of money.
Let me come to some of the detailed points. The lengths of road suggested for these experiments by the County Councils Association are the A.40 in Oxfordshire, the A.38 in Somerset and the A.1 in Hertfordshire. In addition, we have suggested the A.2 in Kent, which we know suffers badly. We know that we shall be pressed to extend this further. I might add, in addition to what the hon. Gentleman has said, that we applaud the initiative of the Oxfordshire County Council and the Bulling-don Rural District Council which have


had experimental sanitary facilities on the A.40 at Wheatley for about two years.
We are hoping now that the county councils concerned and the public health authorities in collaboration with our divisional road engineers will get going to work out the necessary plans for submission by those county councils to my Department and to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. We are suggesting that toilets, one on either side of the road, would be provided at 15 mile intervals. The exact spacing and siting would depend on local conditions in the places that I have mentioned.
As I have said, the Exchequer would contribute one-third of the cost and we have suggested that the public health authority and the county council concerned should share the remainder equally. I emphasise that this is an experiment. We are proposing pilot schemes and we hope to get going this year. The Government are prepared to contribute the sum of £50,000, which means that with the local authorities contributions there should be £150,000 for the installation of sanitary facilities in the places that I have mentioned.
Of course, we realise that these are experimental schemes and after, say, 12 months' experience all of those concerned will want to consider what are the next steps that should be taken. The Government will have to see how far financial assistance should be given—and maybe increased—as a regular thing. The local authorities, of course, will have to review their responsibilities in the matter. We are not at the moment saying that anybody should be com-

mitted to any proportion of responsibility in these arrangements—particularly financial responsibility. These will be matters for future discussion because this is the first time that action of this kind is actually being taken.
The important thing as far as we are concerned is that these pilot experiments should be mounted here and now in 1965 on this basis. I feel confident that the local authorities—and I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will support this—will do whatever they can to deal speedily with the plans and arrangements proposed for these places and get these projects pushed ahead.
As well as motorists who need to stop at a toilet during the course of a long journey, there are holiday motorists who, more and more often, pull up and sleep overnight where no toilets are available. This was a point which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We are very glad to see that one or two county councils have taken powers to provide trunk road service areas for such travellers and we have suggested to the local authority associations that it might be useful to give such powers generally to the county councils.
We are also prepared to consider further the possibility of giving wider powers to the public health authorities to contribute to the provision of sanitary facilities for the general public at refreshment places and petrol stations on main roads.

Finally, I would say—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.